Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

New Writ

For the county constituency of Upper Bann, in the room of James Harold McCusker Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Molyneaux.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Low Wages

Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to raise the number of prosecutions for firms paying below wages council minima.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): The policy of the wages inspectorate under all Governments has been to seek compliance with wages council regulations by advice and persuasion and to prosecute only where an offence is deliberate or repeated and the evidence is considered sufficient. There are no plans to change that policy.

Mr. Boyes: Is not it a scandal and an outrage that tens of thousands of workers are being paid below the minimum wage in companies such as Superbadge in my constituency? In view of the Minister's remarks, I hope that he will look into that company. The Government have been particularly vindictive in several ways. First, there is now only one inspector for 5,000 workers and there were only nine prosecutions in 1989—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question, please, not start a debate.

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I started by asking a question.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: You did not.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did, but hon. Members should seek to limit their questions to one so that more hon. Members have an opportunity to participate.

Mr. Boyes: I asked only one question. We should not give way to one hon. Member who shouts silly remarks.
Is not it time that the numbers of prosecutions and inspectors were increased? Is not it time also that low-paid workers were protected by the Government instead of allowing companies to flout the regulations?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is to be complimented on packing a lot of nonsense into a short space of time. Far from there being evidence of widespread under-compliance by employers, even in premises checked by inspectors 96 to 97 per cent. of those employed are being paid in accordance with the law. On prosecution policy, it may be of some comfort for the hon. Gentleman to know that the rate of prosecutions is higher than it was under the Labour Government. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular constituency case, I shall of course be delighted to look into it.

Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend firmly reject the Labour party's proposal for a statutory minimum wage? Does he agree that that would lead to people on low pay having no jobs at all, the misery of unemployment and all the consequences for families which go with that?

Mr Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The overwhelming number of studies show that the minimum wage policy advocated by the Labour party would have that effect. The difficulty with Labour Members is that they cannot appreciate the fact that no job is worse than low pay.

Government Training Schemes

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are currently engaged on Government training schemes.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): There are 377,700 young people currently engaged on Government training schemes. That figure does not include young people being educated and trained in the 29 inner city compacts and the 3,000 schools and colleges involved in the technical and vocational education initiative, which together cover a further 656,000 young people.

Mr. Flannery: I hope that the Minister will agree that the quality of training depends on the availability of resources to train young people. Why is he cutting the cost per unit for training of our young people when our competitors in West Germany, for instance, are giving far more than we do to train their young people? Will the Secretary of State give serious thought to that when seeking to justify those cuts to the House?

Mr. Howard: One thing that we are often told about West Germany is the contribution that employers make to the training of young people there. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the contribution made by our employers to the training of young people here has increased from £33 million to £200 million in the past four years. We expect that trend to continue and to contribute a great deal towards increasing the quality of training for our young people.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the criticisms that were made of the youth opportunities programme and the improvements that have been made in YTS? Would he like to tell the House that four out of every five people who go on a youth training scheme either get a job or go on to further education? Does he agree that that is a considerable achievement?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no comparison between the virtually nothing that was


done for training young people when the Labour Government were in office and the quality training received by 2 million people under the youth training scheme. My hon. Friend was right in his identification of the proportion who go into jobs or further education.

Mr. Blair: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new contracts for training providers, especially in the voluntary sector, are in a state of near chaos with literally thousands of training places for those with special training needs being put at risk? Is he aware that one voluntary organisation, for the resettlement of young offenders, has put the whole of its 250 youth training staff under threat of redundancy? What steps is the Secretary of State taking as a matter of urgency to ensure that those with special training needs—the most vulnerable in our work force—are not the first casualties of the enormous cut in youth training?

Mr. Howard: I certainly will not confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said. The contracts with the training providers are still under negotiation. They have not yet been finalised. When we finalise them we shall take full account of those with special needs. Before the hon. Gentleman talks about resources, he should have a word with the shadow Chief Secretary who has conspicuously omitted to include training as one of the two priority areas on which it is claimed that a Labour Government would increase spending.

Mr. Tredinnick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Employment Training Services (East Midlands) Ltd. at Hinckley in my constituency, which was formed under his programme, has been so successful that it has had a 90 per cent. occupancy rate with 50 per cent. of those being trained there going on to take up jobs? Indeed, I was privileged to be able to open its new training centre in March this year.

Mr. Howard: I know of the close interest that my hon. Friend takes in that scheme, which is typical of the excellence of the training being provided for young people all over the country.

Engineering Apprenticeships

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of engineering apprenticeships available in the west midlands (a) in 1979, (b) in 1984 and (c) in the latest year for which figures are available.

Mr. Nicholls: Engineering apprenticeships are essentially a matter between an employer and the individual trainee; no regular statistics are maintained about them. There are a number of training routes for skilled engineering and technician workers, of which apprenticeships are only one.
The engineering industry training board however, compiles a register of those completing the first stage of engineering craft and technician training. For the west midlands area the figures are 3,710 in 1978–79, 1,320 in 1983–84 and 1,903 in 1988–89.

Mr. Grocott: The House will understand why the Minister wanted to fudge that reply. The answer from official Department of Employment statistics in that in 1981 manufacturing apprenticeships in the west midlands

totalled 17,700 whereas in 1989 the figure had fallen to 6,900. Is not that a dreadful indictment of 10 years of Thatcherism? How on earth can we expect to compete in the 1990s if we are not giving our young people the apprenticeship opportunities that they have had in the past?

Mr. Nicholls: The only indictment is that of the hon. Gentleman for not having read his own question before coming into the Chamber. He has just asked a supplementary question about manufacturing apprenticeships when his main question dealt with engineering apprenticeships. I have given the hon. Gentleman the answer to that question. I assume that other opportunities are of some interest to the hon. Gentleman, so he should note that there were 4,700 engineering training places available on YTS in the west midlands and 4,500 trainees. That is something which he ought to welcome, but clearly he will not.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that many good things are happening in training in Birmingham, as is shown by the fact that Rover is taking on 1,200 more people with its almost unique 24-hour scheme for building cars? Does my hon. Friend also agree that one of the problems in training has been that unions are loth to have apprenticeships because they often demand starting salaries which are too high for people who are learning? Also, unions think that people who are training are taking their jobs. How are we to create new jobs when that obscurantist attitude persists?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. If one considers the decline in the apprenticeships system, one realises that, by and large, what killed that system off was union pressure to pay apprentices virtually the same rate as qualified people. The good thing about that is that in recent years, under this Government, ways of obtaining training other than traditional apprenticeships have been devised. That is good news, and it underpins the good news to which my hon. Friend referred a moment ago.

Mr. Fatchett: Is not the real decline in apprenticeships in the west midlands a direct result of the Government's policies on training? Has not the 100 per cent. decline in apprenticeships over the past 10 years led to skill shortages in the engineering industry in the west midlands? It is clear from the Minister's answer that the Government have been concerned with quantity and not quality. That is why so many firms in the west midlands engineering industry are looking for skilled workers. The Government have failed young people and the engineering industry in the past decade.

Mr. Nicholls: Virtually nothing in what the hon. Gentleman says accords with the facts. He bemoans the fact that in his constituency firms are looking for skilled workers. We can accept it from him that under a Labour Government they would not be making that search because there would be no possibility of offering jobs. The hon. Gentleman's position would be a great deal more credible if every training initiative that the Government have launched, such as employment training, training and enterprise councils and the youth training scheme had not been attacked and denigrated by the Opposition. That is their contribution to training and it is a thoroughgoing disgrace.

Job Clubs

Mr. Ashby: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job clubs have been established in the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): At 28 February this year, there were 994 job clubs in Great Britain.

Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend confirm that more than half the people who enter job clubs find jobs and that in the past five years some 200,000 people have come out of job clubs into jobs? Is not that a good record?

Mr. Eggar: I can, indeed, confirm that. In addition to the 216,000 people who found jobs via job clubs, a further 55,000 have gone into training or some type of full-time education. I recommend that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have not already done so should go and see their local job clubs in action. They are an impressive way of getting people back into jobs.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there is a Westminster job club for people who are after the Prime Minister's job? How many Tory Members, Cabinet Ministers and ex-Cabinet Ministers have joined that job club? Will the Minister be one of those voting for the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)?

Mr. Eggar: One thing is absolutely certain. Hon. Members on neither side of the House would want to be advised on their job club search by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that job clubs in those parts of the country where unemployment is low have a problem dealing with clients who have difficulties with reading and writing? To what extent could increased efforts be made to help people with such difficulties to find the confidence to go out and obtain jobs?

Mr. Eggar: Yes, indeed. This is a growing problem. We have started some 15 pilot job clubs which specialise in helping people with literacy and numeracy difficulties and with difficulties with English as a second language. The preliminary statistical evidence of the results of those job clubs has been that as many people have found jobs from them as from job clubs in general.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current total of unemployed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Howard: In March 1990 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,603,600, which is 5·6 per cent. of the work force. The European Community average rate for February, the latest available date, was 8·6 per cent.

Mr. Allen: As the Secretary of State always refuses to tell us when the unemployment level will come down to 1979 levels, does he recall the Prime Minister's remark in 1983 that unemployment would return to 1979 levels in the long run? Is this one of the Prime Minister's long runs which will go on and on and on?

Mr. Howard: I have good news for the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will share my rejoicing in it. There are

1·5 million more jobs now than there were in 1979—more than 27 million jobs in total. Will he join me in rejoicing at that figure?

Mr. Dunn: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to speculate on the impact that the high-spending, high-taxing, high-inflation, trade-union-dominated policies of the Labour party would have on employment levels?

Mr. Howard: Unemployment levels would undoubtedly be far higher than they are now, not least because of the one policy above all to which the Labour party is utterly committed—that is, making striking easier. That would undoubtedly have a devastating effect on employment.

Mr. McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware of the exploitation of the unemployed represented by the growth in private security firms which pay as little as 95p per hour and make overtime of up to 12 hours per week mandatory on employees? Is he saying that that exploitation of the unemployed is a matter for rejoicing? Is not it time that he got off his backside and started to bring the excesses of such cowboys under the control of the law?

Mr. Howard: I do not see how that could be regarded as exploitation of the unemployed. It is important that jobs are available to the unemployed, as they now are to a greater extent than ever before.

Mr. Madel: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government will not interfere directly or indirectly in wage negotiations and that it is entirely up to management and unions to work out settlements to keep the maximum number of people in work?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is equally incumbent on all concerned to have regard to the long-term consequences of their actions so that jobs are not lost because of excessive settlements.

Tourist Accommodation

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the provision of accommodation within the British tourist industry after the introduction of the poll tax.

Mr. Nicholls: There is no evidence to suggest that the introduction of the community charge will have any significant effect on the provision of tourist accommodation.

Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister not understand that bed-and-breakfast accommodation owners who will have to pay double poll tax if they open for more than 100 days a year will simply shut their doors after 99 days? Does he not understand that that will inhibit the promotion of tourism, especially in our region where it is spread throughout the year? At best, will not it force up bed-and-breakfast charges?

Mr. Nicholls: No, the hon. Gentleman is confusing several matters. The 100-day exemption was introduced as a result of pressure from the tourist industry which wanted such a concession made. At present such a concession can be based only on the views and, if the hon. Gentleman likes, the fears that people have. In due course the evidence will be available and it must be taken into account. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have been using


his question as an opportunity to remind the House that business rate bills in Birmingham for 1990–91 have been reduced by just under 30 per cent. on average—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not have answers to questions that have not been asked.

Mr. Bevan: Would it not, by implication, do far more damage to those running bed-and-breakfast accommodation if a roof tax were introduced?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I suspect that, once again, that is a policy which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and his colleagues will not tell us about today.

Mr. Wallace: May I direct the Minister's mind to another possible and worrying implication of the poll tax for the tourist industry and for other small businesses—the fact that many small business employers will find that they are obliged to attach the wages of many of their employees who have not paid the poll tax? What assessment has the Department made of the impact of that on industrial relations in small businesses and of the administrative burden that it will impose on those businesses, including those in the tourist industry?

Mr. Nicholls: I do not see how a question about enforcement arrangements relating to legislation passed through the House properly arises under this question. However, I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman if he feels that such arrangements would be an inhibition to the tourist industry.

Career Development Loans

Mr. Moss: T: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications have been approved for career development loans.

Mr. Eggar: Since the career development loans became available nationally in July 1988, more than 8,300 people have taken advantage of career development loans to pay for their own vocational training. Those loans had a total value of more than £20 million.

Mr. Moss: After last year's expansion of some 48 per cent. in the career development loan programme, can my hon. Friend confirm that it is due to increase by a further 65 per cent. in the current year? Is that a concrete example of the Government's commitment to increase incentives and opportunities for people to train?

Mr. Eggar: I can certainly confirm that. The programme is an extremely exciting and innovative proposal, which has been widely accepted and taken up. It is a cost-effective way in which people can get additional vocational qualifications to further their careers.

Mr. Rowe: Is not it true that the gradual shift towards people appreciating that training themselves is their responsibility and their opportunity constitutes our best chance of turning the country into one which can compete with our European competitors in training? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the career development loans are just one shot in an armoury, which I hope is well stocked, of measures that will encourage people to take responsibility for their own training?

Mr. Eggar: Yes. That is also the thought behind the formation of the new training and enterprise councils, which are designed so that local employers can provide the kind of training and enterprise assistance appropriate to the locality. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State recently announced the training credit system to help young people. That is yet another example of the kind outlined by my hon. Friend.

Health and Safety

Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to extend health and safety protection at the workplace.

Mr. Nicholls: The Health and Safety Commission is responsible for bringing forward proposals for the progressive modernisation of health and safety legislation. Details of the commission's future legislative programme will be contained in its plan of work for 1990–91 and beyond, to be published shortly.

Ms. Mowlam: I thank the Minister for that answer. Obviously we are interested in 1990–91, but we are also interested in the record that went before. Given that the employment medical advisory service has cut the number of doctors from 78 to 47 and there have been 147 deaths in the construction industry, can the Minister tell us whether he is satisfied with the amount of funding that the Health and Safety Executive receives?

Mr. Nicholls: The figures for EMAS arise under a later question, but the hon. Lady asks primarily about funding. In recent years, requests by the Commission under the public expenditure survey have been met in full. How the commission decides to allocate resources in accordance with the sums for which it has asked is clearly a matter for the commission.

Mr. Paice: Rather than extending the already high standards of health and safety provisions in this country, is not it more important to ensure that equally high standards obtain throughout Europe? Those standards should be monitored effectively to ensure that European competition is fair and is not advantaged through exploitation of foreign workers.

Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the dimensions of being part of the European Community is phasing together approaches to health and safety that may not always be in kilter. We must take that into account and I will bear in mind the warning that my hon. Friend has given.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that the internal review document of the Health and Safety Executive says that even if the short-term recruitment plans for the inspectorate are met it will still be 16 per cent. short of the numbers that it estimates necessary to meet all demands? It states:
It seems unavoidable that for the foreseeable future the inspectorate will continue to have a considerably greater workload than it can cope with.
In the light of that, how can the Minister hold to the view that he has already expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam)—that the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for its own budget? Clearly, the HSE did not ask for enough money and, as a result, the Government did not make enough money available to it.

Mr. Nicholls: I hesitate to say to the hon. Gentleman that he should have read that internal document more carefully, but it is a fair point for all that. The position is exactly as I said, that the bids made by HSE in recent years have been met in full. If the commission feels that, in the light of developments, more money is required, it will put forward that view. For the time being, the position is precisely as I described it.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures the Government are taking to encourage donation of funds by companies to training and enterprise councils.

Mr. Howard: The Government are providing matching funding on a pound-for-pound basis against donations by companies and other private sources to training and enterprise councils up to a limit of £125,000 per TEC in the first operational year. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech that any individuals or companies that donate funds to TECs to support their activities will be able to claim tax relief on their contributions.

Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that companies are responding extremely well to the challenge of setting up local training and enterprise councils? Is he heartened by what has happened so far, and is not that far better than the Labour party's proposal in its recent policy document to set up a national network of quangos at a cost of more than £1,000 million a year?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is quite right. There is a tremendous amount of enthusiasm surrounding the setting up of training and enterprise councils. I pay tribute to the Stockport and High Peak training and enterprise council, in my hon. Friend's constituency. I expect to receive its proposed corporate and business plans next month, and I look forward to that.

Ms. Armstrong: I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want to let hon. Members go away this afternoon without recognising the great concern among TECs throughout the country, particularly those setting up, at the major cuts in the training budget, which mean that they will be unable to carry out work of the quality and in the way that they would like. I particularly ask him to look at the problems in Durham county, where industries say that they will simply be unable to meet the shortfall. Where there are still high levels of unemployment and skill shortages, it will be impossible to deliver the quality and amount of training needed.

Mr. Howard: There are no major cuts, and what the hon. Lady said was entirely wrong. We have already signed contracts with 12 training and enterprise councils, which are now operational and delivering the services and training needed in their areas. This is an extremely exciting initiative, and instead of carping and whingeing, it would be nice, if only for once, if the Opposition were to recognise its importance.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the principal benefits of training and enterprise councils is to allow local business men more adequately to focus the wide variety of training schemes,

in both the Government and private sector, on the needs of their local areas? Does he further agree that crucial to this enterprise is the ability of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to rationalise equally the 12,000 different technical qualifications available to the benefit of employer and employee alike?

Mr. Howard: I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's question. Local employers are in the best position to know what training is needed to fill the jobs available in their areas and to match the training with the skills required. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the part played by vocational qualifications in achieving those objectives.

Mr. McLeish: Is not it a pity that the Government have to rely on charity to tackle Britain's skills crisis? Will the Secretary of State admit that, as a result of Government cuts, his training and enterprise programmes are in a state of disarray? Will he come clean and tell the House why, in this financial year, £164 million has been cut from youth training, £40 million from the enterprise allowance scheme and £88 million from employment training? Is not the Government's flagship of training, TECs, likely to head for the rocks soon as a result of insensitivity, investment cuts and sheer incompetence?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. What the Labour party cannot accept is that what it is proposing to achieve by compulsion—increasing employers' contributions to training—we are achieving through voluntary means. That is the great achievement of this Government; we have seen it happen over the past four years and we are seeing it happen increasingly. I should have thought that Opposition Members would recognise that and pay tribute to it instead of denigrating it as the hon. Gentleman just did.

Tourist Infrastructure, Hexham

Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will visit the Hexham constituency to assess the tourist infrastructure; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to visit Hexham. However, my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde has recently met representatives of the tourism industry in the north-east and hopes to pay further visits to that region soon.

Mr. Amos: I am sure that my hon. Friend will enjoy his visit to what is generally regarded as the most beautiful constituency in the country, but will he have discussions with his colleague in the Department of Transport to ensure better access to sites such as Hadrian's wall and Langley castle by improving signposting to those areas and by dualling the A69 west of Hexham? Will he also ensure greater private sector involvement with the Northumbrian tourist board?

Mr. Nicholls: Coming from a tourist area myself, I share my hon. Friend's concerns about signposting. He will know, I think, that the English tourist board has asked the regional tourist boards to consider again the whole issue of signposting for tourist purposes. I am sure that that will reassure my hon. Friend.
I understand that there are no present plans to dual the A69, although other improvements are being made to it, but that is a matter which my hon. Friend will want to take up with the Department of Transport.
As for funding, I, like my hon. Friend, pay tribute to the work done in Northumbria. But I fully accept that in an industry in which self-employment is highly represented, the more private sector money that can be injected, the better.

Engineering Training

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what methods he uses to assess value for money with regard to engineering training for young people.

Mr. Nicholls: We assess value for money in public expenditure on youth training by the number of young people obtaining the skills needed by employers reflected in the achievement of recognised vocational qualifications.

Dr. Clark: Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite considerable efforts in recent years, this country has fallen consistently behind its major competitors in respect of the number of young people in engineering and the quality of their engineering training? Are the ad hoc, ever-changing, piecemeal schemes that we have now appropriate, or should we return to a structured but modern form of apprenticeship?

Mr. Nicholls: I do not accept what my hon. Friend says. Youth training in recent times under this Government has improved considerably on what took place under the previous Government. Engineering training on YTS is extremely effective; more than 50 per cent. of trainees leave YTS with a vocational qualification. Overseas comparisons are difficult because different countries do these things in different ways, but apprenticeships in themselves are only a delivery mechanism, and other factors must be taken into account, too.

Mr. Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that engineering training received a great boost in my constituency in the form of a £1 million extension to Stroud college recently, and that 60 per cent. of that money came from local employers, so that courses can be directly relevant to local employment prospects? Is not that a good thing?

Mr. Nicholls: It certainly is. It also says something about the quality of training in engineering provided under YTS. About 75 per cent. of engineering trainees on YTS are in a job within three months of leaving the scheme, and that is obviously good.

Training Schemes

Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many individuals under the age of 21 years are currently being trained under Government-sponsored schemes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: There are about 371,500 trainees on YTS and about 6,200 on community industry. They are all under the age of 21. In addition, 656,000 young people are being educated and trained in the 29 inner-city compacts and the 3,000 schools and colleges involved in the technical

and vocational education initiative. I have no information on the number of the 210,000 people on employment training who are under 21.

Mr. Brown: Is not it clear that cheap labour schemes are no substitute for fully fledged apprenticeships? Is not it time that the Secretary of State learnt the lesson of West Germany, which believes in that system? Is not it time that he responded to the needs of this country? Will he meet the Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and indeed the Amalgamated Engineering Union, to discuss this matter, which is one of the most pressing issues in the country? Unless the Government invest in people, they invest in nothing.

Mr. Howard: These are not cheap labour schemes. They provide high-quality training and the sooner that the Opposition recognise that instead of denigrating and opposing every initiative that is taken to improve training, the better we shall all be.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the guarantee that training is of good quality for those under 21 is that employers are willing to invest their own money in the training? If they were not willing to do that, it would show that the training was not of good quality.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have seen a spectacular increase in the extent to which employers contribute to the cost of training, especially of young people, and we expect that increase to continue.

Dr. Reid: Has the Minister or any of his colleagues had the opportunity to study the Scottish Trades Union Congress youth committee report on YTS, which was presented to the STUC last week? Is he aware that that report illustrates that three out of four people leave YTS before the end of the scheme, that the training content is normally derisory and that the scheme has led to the abolition of apprenticeships in industry? Is it not about time that the Minister listened to those with real experience of the workings of YTS and tried to remedy the major defects in the scheme?

Mr. Howard: I have not seen the report that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but it is completely at variance with the fact that 80 per cent. of those who complete their training on YTS go into jobs or further training. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind, because it is a tribute to the efficacy and success of YTS.

Training, Fylde

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what forms of training that receive Government financial support are available in Fylde.

Mr. Nicholls: My Department currently provides training in Fylde through a range of programmes including youth training, employment training and business growth training. A prospective training and enterprise council is also undertaking a wide-ranging assessment of the training needs of west Lancashire and will set out its proposals to meet those needs in its corporate and business plans.

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. His comments about the new training and enterprise council in


west Lancashire are warmly welcomed. Will he ensure that his Department responds properly to concerns expressed to me about changed arrangements for the funding of training of young people in the Fylde area?

Mr. Nicholls: I fully accept that the recontracting processs has inevitably caused such concerns. If my hon. Friend has a specific concern that he would like to raise with me, I should be more than happy to see him.

Unemployment Benefit

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for unemployment benefit were refused in 1989; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eggar: No applications were refused, but under established procedures independent adjudication officers made some 634,500 decisions to disallow or disqualify claims for unemployment benefit.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that an increasing number of people are losing unemployment benefit, because, even though they qualified for it by paying the stamps while at work, many employers nowadays do not hand the money over to the state? That means that when people become unemployed they are unable to get unemployment benefit because the stamps have not been paid. Will the Minister now reverse the process of 1984, when this Tory Government passed a law enabling such employers not to hand over the money and not to be prosecuted? Is not it time that they were prosecuted for taking money out of somebody's pocket and depriving that person of benefit?

Mr. Eggar: I am sure that in the few places where employers have not followed the correct procedures, action is taken. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had welcomed the fact that we have saved some £62 million as a result of fraud investigations over the past year.

Mr. Dickens: Is not it about time that the Opposition showed more concern about benefit fraud? It is disgusting for somebody to register as unemployed and not to give evidence that he is actively seeking employment. Many people are seeking a free ride.

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is for precisely that reason that we have put significant additional resources into work to ensure that fraud is uncovered.

Skill Centres

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department takes to ensure that new owners of skill centres are equipped to meet the demands of local industry.

Mr. Eggar: My Department took professional advice to ensure that all successful offers met the Government's objectives for the sale. The major objective was the sale to the private sector of viable training businesses. Skill centres in the private sector will be more responsive to the needs of local businesses.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister confirm that the St. Helens skill centre was disposed of without local staff or

local organisations being given an opportunity to bid for it? Does he acknowledge that the new owners have no knowledge of the requirements of industry in St. Helens?

Mr. Eggar: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. The St. Helens skill centre has fulfilled a valuable service to the local community. The new purchasers have every intention of ensuring that that continues. The staff always had the facility to make a bid for the skill centre had they so wished. Indeed, the management buy-out scheme through Astra was actually a buy-out by management of 48 skill centres.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later this afternoon I shall leave for Turkey to be present at the 75th anniversary of the Gallipoli landing tomorrow.

Mr. Oppenheim: When my right hon. Friend has an opportunity, will she remind Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand that their countries have steadfastly refused fully to open their markets in areas such as telecommunications, transport and air travel? Will she also take the opportunity to remind them that it is complete nonsense to talk about political and economic union when we have not yet even achieved a fully open internal market?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point very well. I agree that it is far better to complete the task that we already have in hand, especially the completion of the single market, to ensure that there is fair competition throughout the Community and that the directives for the single market are enforced equally throughout the Community.
When it comes to other matters such as political union, it is best first to define that, because it means different things to different countries. If it goes to the root of different institutions we would have quite a lot to say, including the fact that the powers of national Parliaments must continue to be conserved and that the Community should do only those things that it can do better than individual countries.

Mr. Kinnock: Following the right hon. Lady's inquiries, does she now think that it is true that Walter Somers and her hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) were told by the Department of Trade and Industry that the export order to Iraq did not need a licence?

The Prime Minister: I made the position on export licences for the gun absolutely clear in my answers to the right hon. Gentleman last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) has provided some very helpful details and officials are matching them with their records and recollections. Investigations are in hand by Customs and Excise which is the proper authority to discover the facts and it is getting together all the documents. It is for Customs and Excise to make a


decision on how to proceed. In the meantime, we should congratulate it on intercepting the parts of the gun before they reached Iraq.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister and I warmly endorse her congratulations, which have been well earned, to Customs and Excise. If a company that has experience in these matters says to a Government Department, "We have doubts about an order"; "we are willing to withdraw from that order"; "we are willing to carry on with that order"; or "we are willing to have it traced", what advice does the Prime Minister think such a company should receive from a Government Department?

The Prime Minister: The first advice to any investigating authority is to find out all the facts. That is the task of Customs and Excise, which, as it is the authority which decides whether there should be any prosecution, is the investigating authority—all the facts, and find them first.

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bowis: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the review of the top European companies in The Sunday Times, which shows that of the top 50, two came from Germany, eight from France and 28 from Britain? Will my right hon. Friend find time to congratulate each and every one of those British companies and will she use all her persuasive powers to get the tiniest little cheer on behalf of British achievement from the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I saw the report in The Sunday Times and gladly offer our congratulations to those British firms among the top 50 companies, which are quite excellent and give a great lead to Europe. It also augurs well for the Government's policies. We do not want protectionism for Britain because we can compete in the markets of the world and implement all the Common Market directives. We hope that others will follow our example.

Mr. Beggs: Is the Prime Minister aware that families in Northern Ireland have to pay £5 to £6 per week more for energy because we are cut off from the national gas grid in Great Britain? Is she aware of the proposal, presently funded to the tune of £100 million by the EEC, to pipe gas from Morecambe bay to Dundalk in the Irish Republic? What will she do to ensure that gas for the Irish Republic from Morecambe bay is routed through Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the town gas industry in Northern Ireland was closed down many years ago because it was not economic and it would be enormously expensive to start it up again. A few years ago we considered the possibility of obtaining gas from Kinsale in the Republic, but we came to the conclusion that it was just not worth the colossal expenditure, and I think that that would be our conclusion about the present proposal.

Mr. Raffan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members below the Gangway not to carry on conversations? It is very disruptive.

Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a Scotsman sitting for a Welsh seat can face as great a dilemma about which team to support as an Asian living in Bradford? Does she further agree that the true test of a person's loyalty to his country is the contribution that he makes to it, not which cricket team he cheers, and that we can look forward to as viable a contribution from the Hong Kong Chinese who come here as we have long had from the West Indians, the Ugandan Asians and many others?

The Prime Minister: I gladly—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: I gladly pay tribute to the contribution made by all communities to Britain's national life. We are pleased that the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill had a good Second Reading and that the Labour party's squalid, cynical and opportunistic behaviour on that Bill has been so widely recognised for what it was.

Mr. Martlew: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the group of general practitioners who banned constituents of mine from their future lists because those constituents live on two council estates? The doctors said that they were expensive and difficult patients to treat. Does not that prove our argument that the general practitioners' contracts will mean a two-tier service—a well-financed and well-organised service for the rich, and a second-rate, second-class service for the rest?

The Prime Minister: No. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the details of the case that he mentions, and knows that the practice in question was pursuing only its usual policy in respect of the areas from which it takes patients. The council estates are some way from that particular practice. The general practitioners concerned have written a public letter, in which they make it clear that there was nothing unusual about their decision and that they were following only their usual policy. No part of their action was due to reforms of the National Health Service.

Mr. Bevan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bevan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain needs a high-wage, high-productivity economy to produce the type of industry that this country requires? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the settlement reached at Longbridge proves that management, by employing large sums of capital, can create even more highly paid jobs round the clock—and in that instance produce fine motor cars?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that high wages must be earned by high productivity—and, we hope, with something left over to help reduce prices to the consumer. I congratulate Rover on the agreement that it reached, which provides for the first time in this country continuous operation for 24 hours a day, seven days a week—which will lead to 1,200 extra jobs and


increased productivity. Rover is rapidly becoming one of this country's most efficient manufacturers, producing about 20 vehicles per employee, compared with only six in 1979.

Mr. Kaufman: Thanks to its workers.

The Prime Minister: Yes, they are to be thoroughly congratulated. I hope that Britain will achieve more sales at home and more exports.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Taylor: With the number of people undergoing eyesight tests falling by one third since the introduction of charges, and with one optician in five threatened with closure—one practice closed in my own constituency only today—will the Prime Minister review the introduction of charges for eye tests and at least help all old-age pensioners, who comprise the group most at risk from eye diseases that are in some cases sight threatening and life threatening—and who, by and large, are those least able to pay?

The Prime Minister: No. Quite naturally, the number of eye tests increased shortly before charges were introduced, so it is not surprising that it has fallen subsequently. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are special arrangements for people who have particularly bad eyesight or who are related to those who suffer from conditions such as glaucoma.

Mr. Rhodes James: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that those of us who have close, family connections with the Gallipoli campaign of 1915 are very glad that she is to attend the commemoration marking its 75th anniversary? Will my right hon. Friend also emphasise that ANZAC day for the Australians and New

Zealanders, like Remembrance Sunday for us, is a very sacred day when, blessedly, party politics are forgotten and we remember those who served and suffered so that we may live in freedom and peace?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and thank him for letting me have his book on the Gallipoli campaign. We shall not only remember our dead from all parts of the United Kingdom, but we shall pay tribute especially to those from Australia and New Zealand who played such a glorious part in that battle. We shall all commemorate it in precisely the spirit expressed by my hon. Friend.

Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Mowlam: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that Customs and Excise cannot be expected to decide which Government Department is responsible for the Iraqi gun affair? Will she therefore now tell the House which Department and which Minister is responsible?

The Prime Minister: Customs and Excise, in a case such as this, is the prosecuting authority. It is not for Government Departments to decide whether there was anything wrong in the application. That is for Customs and Excise. It cannot do that until it has completed the investigation.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must have a chance to answer.

The Prime Minister: In all legal matters, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, it is as well to find out all the facts, particularly before Customs and Excise cart reach a conclusion.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a tradition of this House that, when the Government are represented in matters such as ANZAC day, invitations are extended to the Official Opposition party of the day? Why was that not done?

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware that the House is being represented and therefore that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister made the point that we—[HON. MEMBERS: "Can't hear."]—ought to get the facts in relation to what is happening in relation to the so-called gun for Iraq. How can we get the facts when the Secretary of State concerned refused to answer questions in this House on the basis that there might be or could be or possibly would be a court case pending? You said, Mr. Speaker, that there was no question of sub judice. How can we put questions about getting the facts when the Secretary of State concerned refuses to answer questions? How can we put it to the Government when they are not prepared to give us the answers?

Mr. Speaker: How the Secretary of State answers questions is a matter for him. The content of his answers is not a matter for me.

Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have to return to a matter which other hon. Members have raised. However, the first half minute of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) was almost entirely inaudible on the Conservative Benches. The question of the microphones must be addressed as a matter of emergency.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that there is a written answer on that matter today in Hansard.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I seek your advice on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Among the many amendments which the House will debate tonight, several have not been selected—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I stop the hon. Lady there? That is not a matter for me. When the House is in Committee, the hon. Lady should raise the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means when he takes the Chair. I do not select amendments for Committee stages of Bills.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for the Environment to go to a constituency without informing the relevant Member? Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for the Environment visited my constituency today? He sneaked in unannounced and issued a press release excusing his poll tax capping of Calderdale.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly it is a convention of the House that, when we go to the constituencies of other hon. Members, we always inform them. We have a very heavy day in front of us.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Brian Wilson: rose——

Mr. Donald Thompson: On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Wilson: I genuinely seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. It is a recognised fact, which has been written and commented on, that on several occasions, wholly inadvertently, the Prime Minister misled the House because——

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the word was "inadvertent".

Mr. Wilson: It was definitely "inadvertent". I am referring to poverty statistics. The Prime Minister repeatedly—and, I have no doubt, in good faith—came to the Dispatch Box and quoted statistics that, it has now been accepted, were diametrically wrong. The corrected statistics have appeared in Hansard in answer to a written question. However, Ministers came repeatedly to the Dispatch Box and used the figures to boast that the rate of economic improvement of the poorest in this country was twice the national average. Now that this has been diametrically denied by the Department concerned, surely Ministers, including the Prime Minister, who used the false statistics are obliged to come to retract them.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot advise the hon. Gentleman on such procedural matters. He must find other ways of dealing with it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Donald Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This is getting contagious.

Mr. Thompson: I apologise for intervening, Mr. Speaker, but, as a result of the accoustics of the House, I did not hear you call the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).
Further to the point of order made by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), is it not right and proper that those who call themselves shadow Ministers should inform us when they visit our constituencies?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us always stick to the conventions of the House, which are of long standing. We should always as a matter of courtesy inform hon. Members if we go to their constituencies.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I call Dr. Cunningham.

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The High Court has just announced that it has agreed that the 21 poll tax-capped Labour local authorities have the right to have the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment reconsidered and examined by judicial review. As the matter is related to the subject down for debate tomorrow, and as in this case,


unlike the fiasco of the Iraqi gun, a case is proceeding, is it in order for the subject to be discussed tomorrow, and can we expect Ministers to answer questions on it?

Mr. Roger Knapman: rose——

Mr. Jerry Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should need to look carefully at the Opposition motion to decide that matter. I was not previously aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said. As a general principle, I believe that it would be in order for him to proceed, bearing in mind that he should not mention anything that is sub judice. It seems to have been a rather lucky choice.

Mr. Hayes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely all that the High Court has done is give leave for a determination of the facts; it has not as yet determined any facts.

Mr. Speaker: I have already told the House that I have no knowledge of the matter. I shall need to look into it.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, 650 unsolicited and unwanted boxes were delivered to the House. I believe that such——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We dealt with that matter yesterday.

Mr. Rowe: But I am raising a totally different point.

Mr. Speaker: How different can it possibly be?

Mr. Rowe: I believe that such deliveries constitute a serious security risk. It is highly likely that they could put us all in danger. In any event, are you satisfied——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the same point. I said yesterday that I was looking into the matter, for the very reason that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take one more—Mr. Knapman.

Mr. Knapman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There may be an error in the Order Paper today. In question No. 15, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) was asking about Government sponsored schemes for training under-21s. Is it not more likely that the hon. Gentleman meant to ask about training for the over-21s?

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea. Let us now move on the the ten-minute rule motion. Mr. Amess.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Very well. Dr. Paisley.

Rev. Paisley: When replying to the various points of order that have been raised today, you commented. Mr. Speaker, that it was a convention of the House for Ministers visiting the constituencies of hon. Members to make it known to the Members in question that they intended to visit their constituencies. May I ask you to call the attention of Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office to that convention, as they never abide by it and certainly never inform Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies when they intend to make such visits?

Mr. Speaker: I was not referring just to Ministers. I was referring to a convention of the House that should apply to all.

Dogs Bill

Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the keeping of certain breeds of dog; to provide for a licensing scheme in respect of those breeds; to provide for increased penalties for the ill-treatment of dogs and for connected purposes.
I freely admit to being a dog lover, although I do not at present own a dog. I have a young family who keep us fully occupied, often behaving as though they were wayward puppies. It is with sadness that I feel it necessary to introduce this Bill, which deals with a serious matter that should be widely discussed.
We are a nation of animal lovers, particulary compared with the way in which the people of many other countries treat their animals. Many people in Britain look after their animals wonderfully well. In certain respects, some of them have a higher regard for animals than they have for human beings. But there is a section of the population who treat animals, and dogs in particular, in an utterly despicable fashion.
Cruelty to animals is intolerable in a civilised society and I hope that the House will view with alarm the RSPCA's recently published statistics, revealing an increase in animal cruelty. Of 2,026 convictions last year, 1,131 involved cruelty to dogs. Owning a dog is a considerable responsibility, and is not to be taken lightly.
My Bill attempts, no doubt in an imperfect fashion, to halt the trend in cruelty. It is in no way directed towards dogs but, rather, towards irresponsible dog owners. I propose that offences involving cruelty to dogs would result in an obligatory disqualification, similar to that imposed in drink-driving offences. Such disqualification could be made automatic in all cases involving cruelty to dogs under section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911.
I propose a minimum disqualification period of three years. There would be an obligatory disqualification for owners of dogs, subject to orders being introduced under the excellent measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes), the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. There would be obligatory life disqualification from keeping any animal on a second conviction within 10 years of the first conviction for cruelty. There would also be power in severe cases to commit defendants convicted of cruelty to dogs for sentence at the Crown court. In such circumstances, maximum sentences would be extended from six months to five years imprisonment.
Over recent months, there has been widespread concern about the number of dog attacks on children and adults. In the past year, there were some fatalities as a result of such attacks. There is a clear lack of confidence in the ability of certain owners properly to control the behaviour of their dogs. Of course, there are differing views of what could be termed dangerous dogs, but there can be little doubt that certain breeds are strong candidates—for example, rottweilers, German shepherds, pit hull terriers, dobermans, Staffordshire bull terriers and bull terriers. I am quite certain that it is not beyond the wit of the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for the Environment, together with the Kennel Club and the RSPCA, to draw up an agreed list of potentially dangerous dogs.
Because certain dog owners have not looked after their dogs properly, some horrific attacks have resulted in

terrible injuries being inflicted upon people. Perhaps to balance that statement, I should draw to the attention of the House an attack last month on a six-year-old girl, when her pet Alsation jumped on her and threw her about like a rag, with the result that she needed 120 stitches and considerable plastic surgery.
Sadly, violence in society today is commonplace. The aggressive behaviour of certain individuals is increasing and is being reflected in the behaviour of some irresponsible dog owners. During a 12-month period in which dog attacks caused 20 deaths, researchers in the United States found that most were caused by so-called defence breeds. Further concern has centred on the cross between a pit bull terrier and a Rhodesian ridgeback. All animals in the study were kept by young people between the ages of 18 and 25. Sadly, half of them had served prison sentences. Also, 40 per cent. of the owners had committed violent crimes and half the dogs that carried out the attacks had been cruelly treated and bore the scars of such cruelty. Clearly, violence on the part of dog owners is likely to encourage similar behaviour in their dogs.
The Bill would require the breeders of potentially dangerous dogs to acquire a licence through a register compiled by a local authority. The register would note to whom the dogs were sold, and it would be a condition of the breeding licence that such details were provided annually. Such a list would serve a useful purpose in tracing the owners of potentially dangerous dogs and crossbreeds. The register would be welcomed by responsible breeders and help to improve the esteem of a slightly tarnished activity. The police would also welcome such a measure, as it would help their investigations when attacks are carried out.
The Bill would also require owners to muzzle potentially dangerous breeds when they are not on a lead in public places or not in their habitual quarters—that is, their keepers' private premises. Section 3 of the Pet Animals Act 1951 should be amended so that no animal, in particular a dog, should be sold to a minor.

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: What's wrong with miners?

Mr. Amess: I am referring to a minor in the sense of a young person between 12 and 16.
It is utterly indefensible that a 13-year-old child can purchase a rottweiler. That may seem harsh, but before even a hamster is purchased, it is absolutely essential that the parent gives full consent. Children may love animals and may be eager to obtain all sorts of species, but they can soon tire of what is involved in giving the care and attention that is needed when looking after all sorts of pets.
Finally, the Bill would require the owners of potentially dangerous dogs to have some form of third-party insurance as an obvious protection for the general public, who are always in danger of such attacks. I am not suggesting that the measures that I have briefly outlined provide all the answers to the difficult problems that we face in controlling potentially dangerous dogs. However, I believe that they provide a foundation for constructive legislation on what is a growing problem.
A dog may be a man's best friend, but a man is not necessarily a dog's best friend. I hope that the House will redress that by supporting this sensible and constructive Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. David Alton, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Terry Lewis, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Harry Cohen and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

DOGS

Mr. Davis Amess accordingly presented a Bill to restrict the keeping of certain breeds of dog; to provide for a licensing scheme in respect of those breeds; to provide for increased penalties for the ill-treatment of dogs for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 May and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

Orders of the Day — Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

SECOND ALLOTTED DAY

Further considered in Committee

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. Having seen the selection list I note that two important amendments to new clause 4—amendments (aa) and (bb)—have not been selected; nor has amendment (ee), which would exempt Scotland from the legislation. If we are not to have the chance to consider those amendments, will there be other opportunities for debating those issues?

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): I am required not to give reasons for my selection or non-selection of amendments. I expect that the debate will be a wide debate and if the hon. Lady is fortunate enough to catch my eye, I shall give sympathetic consideration to allowing her to cover the substance of the matter that is reflected by her amendments.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I have heard what you have told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) about amendments, but should like to seek your guidance. My amendment—amendment (u)—is the only amendment that deals with the grounds on which an abortion can be obtained. It adds the word "serious" to new clause 4 which has been tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. Is the fact that my amendment has not been selected a bar to it being raised during future debates on the Bill? Would it be in order for it to be referred to on Report—subject, again, to selection?

The Chairman: All that I can do is offer the hon. Gentleman the advice that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). He has raised this matter with me. I assure him that I am not being facetious when I say that I take his point seriously. The selection of amendments on Report is a matter for Mr. Speaker. No doubt his attention will be drawn to what has been said, the representations that have been made about today and those which the hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly make in future.

New clause 4

AMENDMENT OF LAW RELATING TO TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY

'.—(1) For paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 (grounds for medical termination of pregnancy) there is substituted—
(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
(c) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-eighth week and that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.".

(2) In section 1(4) of that Act, for "to save the life" to the end there is substituted—
(a) to save the life of the pregnant woman, or
(b) to prevent grave permanent injury to her physical or mental health, and, in the latte r case, that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week.".—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

The Chairman: With this we may consider the following amendments to new clause (4): (a), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'eighteenth'.
(b), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert `twenty-eighth'.
(c), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'twentieth'.
(d), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'twenty-sixth'.
(e), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'twenty-second'.
(f), in line 6, at end insert—
'(aa) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or'.
(g), in line 6, at end insert—
(aa) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-eighth week and that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or'.
(x), in line 8, leave out from 'woman,' to 'or'.
(i), in line 9, leave out
'that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-eighth week and'.
(j), in line 9, leave out 'twenty-eighth' and insert
'twenty-fourth'.
(s), in line 11, at end insert '; or
(d) that the pregnancy is due to an act of rape or incest.'.
(h), in line 11, at end insert—
'( ) In section 1(2) of that Act, after "(a)" there is inserted "or (aa)"'.
(k), in line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 16.
(y), in line 12, leave out from 'Act,' to end of line 16 and insert
'after "practitioners" (in line 3) the words "and to time limits" shall be inserted.'.
(l), in line 15, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'eighteenth'.
(m), in line 15, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'twenty-eighth'.
(n), in line 15, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'twentieth'.
(o), in line 15, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'twenty-sixth'.
(p), in line 15, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert `twenty-second'.
(q), in line 16, at end insert—
'(3) For section 5(1) of that Act (effect on Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929) there is substituted—
(1) No offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act.".'.
(r), in line 16, at end insert—
'( ) In section 1(2) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (presumption that child is capable of being born alive), for "twenty-eight" there is substituted "twenty-four".'.
(dd), in line 16, at end insert—

'( ) In section 1(2) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (Presumption that child is capable of being born alive), for "evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be prima facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive" there is substituted "to be considered being capable of being born alive, a foetus must be capable of sustained independent survival".'.

We are also to consider at the same time the following:New clause 1—Amendment of Abortion Act 1967—
'.—(1) The Abortion Act 1967 shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsections (1) and (2) of section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 ("the principal Act") there shall be substituted—
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is teminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve—

(a) risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or
(b) risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
(c) risk of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing children of her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
(d) substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.


(2) In determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to health as is mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of this section, account may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment:
(2A) No pregnancy may lawfully be terminated after the end of its twenty-fourth week—

(a) under sebsection (1)(b) of this section, unless two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of the pregnancy is essential to prevent serious damage to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman; or
(b) solely on the ground of subsection (1)(c) of the section.


(2B) Where at the time of the termination of pregnancy two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week, that opinion shall, for the purposes of subsection (2A) of this section, be conclusive.
(3) For section (5)(1) of the principal Act there shall be substituted—
5.—(1) No offence under Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(4) This section shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which it is passed.'.

New clause 2—Time limit for termination of pregnancy—
'.—(1) Section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 (termination of pregnancy not to be a criminal offence where specified in the section) shall apply only to a termination up to the end of the twenty-fourth week of gestation.
(2) It shall not in any case be an offence under the law relating to abortion for a pregnancy to be terminated by a registered medical practitioner in a case where he is of the opinion formed in good faith, that the termination is immediately necessary to save the woman's life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.


(3) For section 5 of the Abortion Act 1967 there shall be substituted—
5. No offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(4) In this section, "the law relating to abortion" means sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and any rule of law relating to the procurement of an abortion.
(5) This section shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which it is passed.'.

New clause 3—Medical judgment: termination of pregnancy—
'(1) The Abortion Act 1967 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After section 1(1)(b) there shall be inserted—"and
(c) that the foetus is not viable and capable of sustained survival at the time the pregnancy is to be terminated.
(3) For section 5(1) there shall be substituted
(1) The provisions of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (protecting the life of the viable foetus) shall not apply to any treatment for termination of pregnancy carried out under the provisions of this Act.".'.

New clause 5—Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment of 1967 Act)—
'.—(1) Section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 is amended by leaving out the condition imposed by the words beginning with the word "two", following the word "if' in subsection (1) to the end of the subsection, and by leaving out subsection (2).
(2) In place of the words left out there are inserted the following words—

"(a) the pregnancy has not exceeded its twelfth week and the termination is with the consent of the registered medical practitioner on whose list the pregnant woman is, or
(b) the pregnancy has exceeded its twelfth but not its twenty-fourth week, if both the practitioner who carries out the termination and another registered medical practitioner of not less than consultant level certify in good faith that the pregnancy puts at grave risk the mother's physical or mental health, or that there is a foetal abnormality with a strong probability that the child would suffer a condition both incurable and wholly destructive of the quality of life, or that conception arises from rape or child abuse or that the mother was a minor at the time of conception,
(c) the continuation of the pregnancy would result in the death of the pregnant mother or irreversible grave damage to her health."


(3) Section 1 of the 1967 Act is further amended by leaving out of subsection (4) the reference to two medical practitioners in subsection (1).'.

Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. Could you explain to the House in the best and most clear form available to you exactly how the procedures will operate today and how the voting will take place on the amendments on the order paper?

The Chairman: I am bound by the recommendations of the Business Committee. We shall have a debate lasting until 11 pm, on the assumption that hon. Members sustain the debate until then. All the signs are that that is the case. On new clause 4, the various amendments listed in the selection list and the substance of new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5, the voting will follow the sequence of the amendments and new clauses on the selection list, conditioned, of course, by the outcome of each Division. We shall follow the sequence on the selection list.

Mr. Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. Could you make certain that it is made clear to hon. Members exactly what they are voting on before each Division takes place?

The Chairman: That is a matter for the judgment and common sense of hon. Members. Of course, when the time comes to put the amendments to the House, we shall seek, as far as is practicable for the Chair, and short of appearing to advise hon. Members on how they might vote, to respond to what the hon. Gentleman said and to make sure that hon. Members know what they are voting on. In the course of the debate, Members will be aware of what they are discussing and what the Division about.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not think that that is good enough. Yesterday, a list of amendments was put in the No Lobby. It showed what type of amendments would be taken today. Even they were complicated. Nevertheless, that is what we expected. Today the agenda is different. I have no doubt that many Members of Parliament here today are working on the principle that what they saw in the No Lobby yesterday will apply. Apparently, that is no longer the case. We have already heard that certain amendments tabled by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have not been selected. Those amendments apparently will not be taken.
Furthermore, we are dealing with an unusual procedure. It is not normal practice for the House of Commons. In the first place, the idea that the debate will continue until 11 pm is unusual. From then on, a series of amendments will be put to the House. In many cases, which one is called will depend on which amendments have been carried. That is not the case on any other occasion. This procedure should not have been started in arty case. It is only because of the pressures brought by certain individuals that we are dealing with abortion on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. People have been twisting and turning on the Bill ever since it began.
The Chair has a duty to explain, before the business begins, exactly what amendments will be taken, in what order, and which will fall subsequently if others are carried, so that everyone is aware of what is happening. There is a serious danger that, if certain amendments are carried, some hon. Members will think that that is the end of the business. They might leave this place, with the result that a change might take place at 2, 3, or 4 o'clock in the morning. It is high time that the Chair fully explained what the amendments are, in what order they will be taken and which will fall consequent on others being carried.

4 pm

The Chairman: The normal procedure of the House has been followed for the selection of amendments. There is nothing unusual in the fact that, for various reasons, some amendments have not been selected. I have explained that I am not required to give reasons for non-selection. There is nothing unusual about that. The extension of our sitting time to 11 pm was decided by the House following the recommendations of the Business Committee.

Mr. Skinner: The Front Benches.

The Chairman: I am bound by the decisions of the majority of the House. The hon. Gentleman asked about the sequence of the amendments put to the House. At the conclusion of the debate, the occupant of the Chair shall


again follow the usual practice of the House and put them as they are set down on the selection paper. Clearly, some amendments are conditional on what may happen to preceding amendments, but that can be determined only in the light of events after 11 pm.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. Is it right that this debate will be more like a Second Reading debate than an ordinary Committee debate on abortion? In answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), you said that the debate would be wide. Does that mean that it will be like a Second Reading debate on abortion, only with amendments?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is correct, in so far as the new clause deals with abortion. We are responding to the question whether the clause will be read a Second time, and to that extent it will be like a Second Reading debate. It may be a little unusual that, within that one debate, we shall also discuss all the amendments which I have selected and which are set down on the selection paper.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Walker. Is it not the case that the lists for today and yesterday are identical except that today, not surprisingly, the words "First Allotted Day" are omitted?

The Chairman: The hon. Lady is correct.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Walker. I am sure that the public at large, as well as hon. Members, feel that this complicated procedure has been drawn up to confuse, in the hope that the anti-abortionists will at last get their way. I am disappointed that we shall not have a full explanation of each amendment and clause as it is debated.

The Chairman: If the hon. Lady finds the procedure difficult, the Chair finds it no less difficult. Like all hon. Members, I have to recognise the Standing Orders and established procedures of the House. It provides difficulties for the occupant of the Chair no less, and perhaps even more, than for ordinary Members. Surely, the explanation of the amendments rests not with the Chair, but with those responsible for them. It is not for me to guide the House on the merits of the amendments. I am following the established procedures of the House, and on an occasion such as this, they become rather difficult and complicated.
We are taking up valuable debating time. Perhaps we can move on.

Mr. Wells: Just before we get on to the debate, may I urge you, Mr. Walker, because of the views put to you from various parts of the House, to recognise that this is an unusual procedure which you have adopted? Members of Parliament will be in difficulties if you follow exactly the same sort of procedures which are normally followed by the Chair. Members of Parliament would appreciate a great deal more clarity when you announce the various questions about exactly what we are voting on. I urge you to consider that.

The Chairman: I must tell the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) that they are not procedures that I have adopted but the procedures of the House, reinforced by the recommendations of the Business Committee, upon which the House voted. I have not chosen the procedures, but I must apply them. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that these are not easy matters and that, at the end of our debate, the House should be quite clear when it is required to vote. Certainly I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said and, whether I or anyone else is in the Chair, we shall ensure that we are alive to the hon. Gentleman's point and that the House is clear, in so far as the Chair can make it clear, exactly what it is to vote upon. I do not think that I can go beyond that. Perhaps we can now proceed.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): In rising to speak to this new clause I am clear that, perhaps above all others, this is an issue on which there are deeply felt and sincerely held views on all sides in the House and in the country.
On questions relating to abortion, the Government, like their predecessors, do not have a collective view. The issue is one on which Ministers and Members of all political parties, and also adherents of many religious beliefs, take differing views. It is essentially a matter of individual judgment and conscience to decide in this area what the law should permit and what it should ban.
On abortion it is also a matter of individual judgment and conscience what a person should do within what the law permits. In what follows I shall distinguish my role as a Minister and my position as the Member of Parliament for Surrey, South-West. Being a Health Minister gives me no special basis upon which to advise anyone on matters of conscience or morality. That is a measure of the special nature of the matter now before us.
In speaking to the new clause on time limits for abortion, which stands in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, it would be helpful to the Committee to go into some detail about the background to it, its effect if carried in its present or modified form, and on the ways in which the Committee may be able to reach a coherent conclusion on those matters. In view of the importance and complexity of the questions, I have arranged for copies of my speech to be made available in the Vote Office as soon as possible so that hon. Members can study it in more detail and perhaps draw on it as the day proceeds.
I shall concentrate on the new clause and the amendments in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Other amendments will no doubt be the subject of detailed discussion later in the debate.
The Government have an inescapable role in administering what Parliament has decided to enact. With it comes the role of advising Parliament if a legislative proposal seems confusing, or difficult to operate in practice, or inconsistent with some other provision. With it also comes the further role of advising Parliament of ways in which changes over time and the recent developments in medical and scientific practices may have affected the existing legislation in ways in which Parliament should take account. It is in that context that the Government have considered the question of abortion time limits.
The Abortion Act 1967—private Member's legislation—applied to Great Britain but not to Northern Ireland and did not include specific references to time limits. It linked instead with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. That Act, which applies to England and Wales, made it a criminal offence to destroy the life of any child capable of being born alive, except where it is done to save the woman's life, and for that purpose provided a rebuttable presumption that a woman who had been pregnant for 28 weeks should be presumed to have a child capable of being born alive. At and above 28 weeks, the onus is on the defendant to show that the child would not have been viable. Below that time, the onus is on the prosecution to show that the child would have been born alive.
The 28-week figure was established on the basis of the medical and scientific knowledge available at that time, more than 60 years ago. In Scotland, the only legislative proposals are those contained in the Abortion Act 1967. As I have made clear, the 1967 Act does not include reference to time limits, so in Scotland satisfaction of the grounds for abortion as set out in section 1 of that Act is all that is needed to ensure that a termination of pregnancy is lawful.

Mr. Wells: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Before she goes on, will she accurately define what she means by "viable" in this context?

Mrs. Bottomley: For a child to be born viable, it must have a beating heart and sustainable respiration. I shall go on to talk about the recommendations of several organisations involved with the subject as to what is an appropriate way to respond to the issue of viability. Under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, that is a matter for the prosecution to substantiate in the case of a child born under or over the limit. Since 1929, advances in medicine have altered the position on foetal viability. Some foetuses of less than 28 weeks gestation, which would at one time have stood little chance of surviving after birth, now have a greater chance of survival. That is the issue about which my hon. Friend is concerned.
In 1980, the Government invited a working party of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, including representatives of medical and midwifery professional bodies, to consider the question of foetal viability. In 1985, they presented a report. Its conclusion was that the presumptive age of capacity to be born alive should be reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. That advice was confirmed by the royal college and the associated organisations when they reviewed the report at the end of 1987.
In a statement issued only this month, the royal college reiterated its view that 24 weeks should be the age at which a foetus is considered viable. In their view, a gestational age limit below 24 weeks would have an inequitable and adverse effect on those women in need of having their pregnancies terminated. Ministers have indicated on several occasions, in this House and in another place, in debates on private Members' legislation on this subject, that a reduction to 24 weeks, as proposed in the royal college report, would be in line with current medical opinion and practice.
The Government have taken administrative action to ensure that no abortions above 24 weeks are carried out in private clinics licensed by the Secretary of State for the

purpose of the Abortion Act. The number of such abortions carried out in National Health hospitals is now small—the figure for Great Britain in 1988 was 23.

Mr. David Alton: Has the Minister had a chance to consider the ruling of Mr. Justice Brooke, who said that viability was to be defined as the capacity to survive for a few minutes unaided? Where does the definition that she has just given leave babies such as the Carlisle baby, which was born and survived for three hours struggling for life in a petrie dish before being incinerated?

Mrs. Bottomley: The Carlisle baby case has been subject to much discussion, not least in a debate in this House in which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office took part. The other case to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a matter for civil law. I am making it clear that there is a considerable body of opinion which believes that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act limit should be reconsidered, and that viability should be reconsidered at the stage of 24 weeks. In cases where that is challenged, it is a matter for debate in the courts.

Mr. Wells: I am sorry to press the point about viability, but I am concerned as to whether the viability test includes the lack of a brain, or its function, and major defects, both mental and physical, in the foetus in the women's body. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister could make it clear whether or not her term "viability" includes those considerations.

Mrs. Bottomley: I have made it clear that viability has to do with being able to sustain life, having a heartbeat and being able to sustain respiration——

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The fundamental question to many of us concerns the life of the child. How many women miscarry after 20 weeks, because that seems fundamental to the question of how many children we are killing?

Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot tell my hon. Friend how many women miscarry after 20 weeks, but I can tell him that there have been about 3,000 legal abortions after 20 weeks.

Ms. Clare Short: I should like to return to the point in the Minister's speech when she first gave way, and to the recommendation that we should come down to a 24-week limit—which I support, with exceptions for hard cases. Can the hon. Lady confirm for the record that, of babies born at 24 weeks, only about 15 per cent. survive—with all the medical technology that we have—and that large numbers of them are brain-damaged? It should be recorded that we are discussing the very brink of viability of a child.

Mrs. Bottomley: I can confirm that many of these early infants sustain either physical or learning disabilities. I cannot give the precise proportion, but it is considerable.

Sir Bernard Braine: I hesitate to rise, because I realise that my hon. Friend is in the middle of her speech, but a far more important question with which the House must deal concerns the state of the present law. Does the Infant Life (Preservation) Act lay down that it is a crime to abort a child capable of being born alive? If we


relate that to the age at which children are being born alive and surviving, we get a clue—nay, an answer—to the issue which should constitute this debate.

Mrs. Bottomley: As the Father of the House knows the terms of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act full well, he will know that it is for the prosecution to substantiate its claim to rebut the assumption of the limit at which a child should be presumed to be capable of being born alive. I know that my right hon. Friend feels strongly about this subject and no doubt he will have the opportunity to speak later in the debate, but I should make some headway.
In the many debates on abortion, in this House and in another place, there has been movement towards changes which would include specific time limits for Great Britain within the Abortion Act 1967, rather than merely amending the 1929 Act. That was the proposal made by the Select Committee in another place and in various recent Bills, including the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which recently came to us as private Member's legislation from another place. For convenience I intend to refer to it as the current abortion Bill.
Members are all aware of the lengthy and complex debates that have taken place on this subject in recent years in this House and in another place. The Committee now has this opportunity to debate and decide on these matters. Both outside and inside Parliament a view has increasingly developed that Parliament should decide where it now stands on this vital issue. There have been lengthy debates in the country as well as here. Parliament many now be ready to reach a conclusion on those questions.
It may be the view of the House that a clear outcome should be reached which would take into consideration the changes in medical and scientific practices, but I must emphasise again that the Government are not seeking to lay down whether a change should be made or, if so, what the change should be. The Committee may wish to leave the law as it is, or to alter the Infant Life (Preservation) Act only, or to bring time limits within the Abortion Act at various possible levels.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Since the gynaecologists started to make their report on the viability of foetuses, and then brought in their revised report, a massive change has taken place in technology; so the so-called figures put on the so-called record by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) are quite fictitious because techniques are advancing so rapidly that disabilities of that kind can be overcome much more readily. We are supposed to be legislating for the future, not for the current state of play or what has happened within the year, but for what will happen in the next 10 years.

Mrs. Bottomley: I am afraid that in a sense I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the learned bodies have only recently reviewed and reconfirmed their previous advice. It is estimated that about 40 per cent. of small infants born before 24 weeks have some learning disability or some other serious disability. Perhaps I could make some progress now.
As hon. Members are well aware, the role of the Minister is to help the Committee, if it wishes to debate these matters and to reach conclusions, to do so in an

orderly and logical way. We have already agreed on timetable motions to ensure that there is adequate time for debate and to allow votes on the amendments. It is up to the Committee whether it uses those opportunities. It is evident that it would be possible to produce outcomes which were to a greater or lesser extent coherent or confused.
From the detailed soundings that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has made in all parts of the Committee, it appears to be the overwhelming wish to avoid an inconclusive outcome and to produce a definite workable result. In view of the responsibilities of the Department of Health for administering the abortion provisions, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, with the Leader of the House, and with other Health Ministers considered how best procedural help could be offered to the Committee.
The subject is complex not only because of the wide range of choices available, but also because of the interaction in England and Wales between the Infant Life (Preservation) Act and the Abortion Act. The House will be grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for putting down a comprehensive new clause setting out a coherent scheme based on what may be a possible consensus. I use the word "possible" rather than "likely" because the new clause is not intended in any way to pre-empt discussion and decision. The position is quite the reverse. The new clause tries to cover the main aspects on which the House needs to reach a decision one way or another, both on the time limits for the various provisions in the Abortion Act and on the rebuttable presumption in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Minister tell us why we were not given the opportunity fully to debate the Houghton Bill as the Lords were? That is what we wanted.

Mrs. Bottomley: I think that I have made it clear that my right hon. and learned Friends the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Health have used their best efforts to ensure that it is possible for the Committee to debate the main principles involved so as to try to reach some sort of consensus. These subjects have been debated frequently in recent years without reaching a conclusion. Efforts have been made to ensure that people are fully able to debate the key issues not only in the House but in the country.

Mr. Skinner: The Minister has said that there have been soundings of hon. Members. I am not aware of who was sounded out. May we take it that she can tell us exactly who the Leader of the House spoke to? Were members of the pro-life group asked to give their opinion in order to try to get them off the Government's back? Notwithstanding the soundings of pro-life representatives, I can assure the Minister that from listening to interviews on the radio it is clear that the pro-life group will not go away. Irrespective of what happens today, they will come back because the Ceaucescu lobby is here to stay. I want to know who was sounded out. Was it Opposition Members, people on the Front Bench or members of the pro-life group? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) was sounded out. How many more people were sounded out?

Mrs. Bottomley: I have little sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It is clear that a period of time


has been set a part to debate these crucial issues. There is strong feeling not only in the House but in the country on these questions. I have made it clear that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has sounded out a number of people who have a strong interest. They were people in both parties with various interests and those who have strong views on the subject. He was trying to take a balanced view to make sure that everyone could contribute. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will have an opportunity to make a fuller contribution to the debate.
The new clause is put forward in my right hon. and learned Friend's role as Leader of the House. It does not necessarily comprise his views as the Member for Surrey, East. The new clause contains only possible answers. We have been anxious to present the House with a range of possible amendments on various aspects of the new clause, drafted in what we believe, after taking advice, would be a workable way. The rules of the House understandably prevent my right hon. and learned Friend from moving amendments to his new clause. For that reason, to assist the Committee my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health agreed to put down a series of amendments. Some propose to relax particular limits in the new clause and others would make them more stringent.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I rise on a point of clarification, which my hon. Friend may not be able to answer. Perhaps our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State can answer when he replies to the debate. Some people feel that amendment (f) might have been inadvertently misdrafted. Perhaps we could have clarification on whether, if it is passed, the termination level would be unlimited, or whether it would be at the level that we previously would have agreed when we voted on the various weeks contained in earlier amendments. Perhaps we could have clarification of that before we reach the votes.

Mrs. Bottomley: I can make that clarification now, but then I must proceed with my speech so that other hon. Members can have the opportunity to make their speeches. Amendment (f) has no time limit, whereas amendment (g) introduces a time limit of 28 weeks in the case of grave permanent injury to the health of the woman.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has already provided hon. Members with a fair amount of written material which sets out the background to the subject, the nature of the new clause and the amendments to it that he and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health have put down, and the main procedural issues which seem to us to arise when the time for decision-making comes. I urge all hon. Members to study that material carefully because it seeks to set out as clearly as possible the effect of the new clause and of my right hon. and learned Friends' amendments to it.
An attempt has been made to provide hon. Members with relevant material. It is nevertheless inevitably complex and difficult legally, over and above the moral and ethical complexities that the subject presents to us. It may help the Committee to go through the new clause in some detail, referring to possible variations which might be made in it and explaining at the same time how hon. Members may wish to reach a decision so as to avoid

inconsistency and difficulty in practical matters. I apologise to the Committee in advance that in discussing the new clause and my right hon. and learned Friends' amendments I shall need to go into complex options and choices where action in one area may impinge on what is done in other areas. However, if the Committee permits I shall try in my speech to make the position as clear as I can. Copies of my speech will be available.
The main object of the new clause is to put specific time limits in the 1967 Abortion Act while leaving the system of the rebuttable presumption in the 1929 Infant Life (Preservation) Act to operate as well. I shall say more later about the 1929 Act. Unless changes are made in the 1929 Act to separate it from the 1967 Act completely, anything said about specific time limits needs to be qualified in respect of England and Wales by reference to the 1929 Act. If hon. Members do not wish to put time limits into the 1967 Act, they should vote against the new clause.
Subsection (1) of new clause 4 deals with the ordinary case where termination of pregnancy has to be approved by two doctors. That is to be distinguished from the emergency provisions in section 1(4) of the 1967 Act where the approval of only one doctor is needed, and to which I shall return later. The new clause sets out three separate grounds for abortion. Those are essentially the same as those in the 1967 Act, but have been rearranged to bring them out more clearly. The 1967 Act included two of them in one paragraph.
The first ground in new clause 4, subsection (I)(a), deals with abortion where two doctors consider that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, or any existing children of her family. I shall refer to this as injury to physical or mental health. That is by far the most common ground on which abortions are at present carried out, and accounted last year for 89 per cent. of the total. In such cases, the new clause would provide as a time limit that the pregnancy has not exceeded the 24th week.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mrs. Bottomley: No.
Under the clause, the 1929 Act would still apply in England and Wales, so that it would not be legal to perform an abortion even at or below 24 weeks if the child was capable of being born alive. Twenty-four weeks was selected as perhaps the most commonly suggested limit, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has moved amendments to substitute other figures at two-week intervals from 18 to 28 weeks. Those are amendments (a) to (e), and they appear on the Order Paper in what is referred to as the "pendulum order".
If the new clause is accepted, the first of those amendments that is passed will set the time limit in the new clause. If no amendments are passed, the time limit will be the proposed 24 weeks. That may be so regarded by most people outside the House.
Paragraph (b) provides for abortions where the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated. That makes no change from the 1967 Act. There is little or no dispute that that provision should remain.

Mr. Duffy: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mrs. Bottomley: Unlike all the other provisions, it is not affected by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, since the 1929 Act makes a specific exception for actions done in good faith
for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.
Paragraph (c) of the new clause deals with cases where there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. That is regarded as the "serious foetal handicap" category.
There is widespread recognition that such cases present particular difficulty for several reasons. A special factor is that foetal handicap may not be diagnosable until fairly late in the pregnancy, although we hope that new medical techniques will increasingly make earlier diagnosis of some of those abnormalities possible, a subject that we debated yesterday. A time limit of 28 weeks has been suggested. That is subject to the provisions of the 1929 Act.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has put down amendments which, if selected, would give the options of a 24-week limit for that type of case, amendment (i), or no limit at all, amendment (j), as provided in the current Abortion Bill passed by another place. In either case, the amendments would be subject again to the overriding provisions of the 1929 Act, unless the House decides to remove those too. I refer to amendment (q).
The three criteria set out in the new clause and in the 1967 Act are not the only ones that can be proposed. As the first example of this, the new clause does not provide in abortions approved by two doctors for the special test of
grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman".
That form of words is specified as a ground for abortion in the emergency provisions in section 1(4) of the 1967 Act to which I shall refer later.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has put on the Order Paper amendments to insert this as a ground, either with no time limit, amendment (m), or a 28-week time limit, amendment (g). Either would be subject to the 1929 Act unless, as I have made clear, the House decided otherwise, and that would be amendment(q) 
Subsection (2) deals with what are generally referred to as the "emergency" situations where an abortion can be carried out by one doctor without the second opinion that is normally required. That is covered at present in section 1(4) of the 1967 Act on two grounds—to save the life of the pregnant woman, or to prevent grave permanent injury to her physical or mental health. On the first ground—that of saving life—there is at present no time limit, and the 1929 Act does not apply. No change is proposed here.
In the case of grave permanent injury, the effect of the 1929 Act in England and Wales is to apply at present a limit of, in effect, 28 weeks. That can be misunderstood. If time limits come to be applied in the Abortion Act to non-emergency abortion, it would seem logical that such time limits should also apply to this category of emergency abortions. The new clause proposes a limit of 24 weeks in line with the main limit. My right hon. and learned Friend refers to that aspect in his guidance for right hon. and hon. Members. In that area, in particular, it may be felt that the position should be different from the main limit.
My right hon. and learned Friend's amendments propose various alternatives. Amendment (k) would omit subsection (2) of the new clause altogether, thus leaving the situation as in section 1(4) of the 1967 Act, with the application of the 1929 Act as well. Amendments (l) to (p) set out other time limits for the emergency provision, varying from 18 to 28 weeks. My right hon. and learned Friend makes clear the importance of consistency in terms of the emergency and non-emergency limits. They should be taken in the same way as the similar changes proposed for the main limits.
It is necessary to say a further word about the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which applied only to England and Wales and for which no equivalent exists in relation to Scotland. Under the new clause and my right hon. and learned Friend's amendments down to and including (p), the 1929 Act remains, and it provides an overriding test of viability where the rebuttable presumption remains at 28 weeks.
My right hon. and learned Friend's last two amendments, (q) and (r), address that subject. Amendment (q) would separate the 1967 Act from the 1929 Act and would mean that any new time limits placed in the 1967 Act overrode the 1929 Act. That is proposed in the current Abortion Bill passed by another place. In other words, a main limit of 24 weeks, or for some other figure, would apply without consideration of whether or not the child was viable.
The 1929 Act would remain for abortions above those limits. Under amendment (q) by itself, the rebuttable presumption on viability would remain at 28 weeks. The 1929 Act does not apply to Scotland, and the effect of the new clause is setting out time limits on abortion would be the only one relevant to Scotland.
Amendment (r) amends the 1929 Act to make the rebuttable presumption apply at 24 weeks rather than 28 weeks. By itself, amendment (r) would simply mean that the 1967 Act and the 1929 Act both had to be taken into account but that the 1929 Act had a new and lower level for the rebuttable presumption.
If amendments (q) and (r) were both accepted by the Committee, the 1929 Act would apply only to abortions that were not covered by the specific limits in the amended 1967 Act but it would apply at the lower level of 24 weeks instead of the present 28.
In considering amendment (r), right hon. and hon. Members will wish to bear in mind difficulties that might arise if the levels set in the 1929 Act were lower than any of the levels set in the 1967 Act as amended, which were disapplied, unless amendment (q) were also passed to separate the operation of two Acts. For example, if the 1929 Act were reduced to 24 weeks, but the limit in the 1967 Act for serious foetal handicap was retained at 28 weeks, the resulting presumption that a child over 24 weeks is capable of being born alive would probably prevent abortions being carried out between 24 and 28 weeks for serious foetal handicap.
This explanation is inevitably rather complex. It may help the Committee to understand the basis of the new clause and the main possibilities for amendment which arise on it. The arrangement is that there will be a single debate on the new clause and on the various selected amendments together. That will be followed by a vote on the new clause. If it is accepted, there will be votes on the amendments selected.

Mr. Frank Doran: I am sure that the Committee is grateful for the Minister's explanation, but I am mindful that all her remarks relate to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and to the situation in England and Wales. Will the Minister clarify for the record the situation in respect of Scotland? She will be aware that the law there is very different from that in England and Wales. In Scotland, there is effectively no time limit—but the law is to be radically amended by new clause 11, apparently without consultation and in the absence of a Scottish Office Minister. Will the Minister confirm the precise impact of the new clause and of the amendments on Scotland?

Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 Act does not apply in Scotland. That may be a subject for further discussion and the hon. Gentleman may wish to refer to it later. The Abortion Act 1967 applies, but the 1929 Act does not apply in Scotland. That is simple and clear.

Mr. Doran: Regardless of which amendment the Committee finally agrees upon and what time limit, what would be the effect on the Scottish position?

Mrs. Bottonley: The only time limits that would apply in Scotland would be those in the new clause. As I have made clear, the 1929 Act does not apply in Scotland. At a later date we may wish to tidy up the position to ensure that there is a coherent framework within which the law can operate. Certainly the position in Scotland will require careful consideration.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Bottomley: No.
Other new clauses and amendments to the Government's new clause will be moved and many issues will be raised during our debate today. They will cover a range of topics in addition to the strict time limits issue. For example, they will cover subjects such as the exemptions for rape or incest. They may specify the nature of the abnormality by the certfying doctor and alter the basis on which doctors may consent to a termination.
At the conclusion of today's proceedings, I hope that the Committee may be able to reach a clear, coherent and workable position either to leave existing legislation as it is or to make a series of amendments to it. However, in this complex situation, it may not be possible to reach a position in which all the loose ends have been tied up. I referred to that point in relation to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran).
The Government will carefully consider the outcome of the debate to see whether what emerges satisfies the tests of coherence and workability. If necessary, amendments may be moved on Report, and it may be the wish of the House that that should be so.
In the end, the Committee will have made clear to the Government, to another place and to the large number of people outside the House who are deeply concerned about such matters, what the position is on the proper time limits for abortion in the light of current knowledge and experience. I hope that we can conduct our debate, in a way that is appropriate for such issues of individual judgment and conscience, always remembering that each individual instance where the question of abortion arises represents, whatever one's moral stance, a personal

tragedy to all involved. I urge the Committee to support the new clause standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I doubt whether any Minister has ever had the task which the Minister for Health has had to carry out today in taking the Committee through such a complexity of amendments and their consequences. I am glad that she said that a copy of her speech would be in the Lobby. I only wish that I had had time to dash out of the Chamber and pick up a copy, because her speech was extremely hard to follow.
The method that the Government have used to arrange this important debate with new clause 4 as the core and amendments to it from every conceivable angle, is about as chaotic and crazy as the idea of attaching a clause on abortion to a Bill about embryology. We remain bitterly opposed to the inclusion of abortion in the Bill and we bitterly oppose the method of discussing it today.
The Government have come forward with this method in an attempt to buy off those who bring in restrictive abortion Bills every year. I have been involved in these issues for several years. Other hon. Members have been involved as well, notably the Father of the House. Over the years he has taken the opposite position from mine and he has highlighted abortion every year. I have had to suffer his antics each year when he sought to try to restrict women's rights to abortion.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Richardson: No. Let me get going a bit first. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman if I feel like it.
As far as I can guess, the deal is that if the anti-abortionists can have a vote tonight they will go away for a few years. That is absolute rubbish. If the hon. Members believe that, they are more stupid than I gave them credit for.
It may be all very well for one or two people to have given undertakings. I do not know whether that has happened, but if undertakings have been given, other hon. Members may appear with different ideas. For example, we are two years away from a general election and there may be new Members and other people who may not feel bound by any commitments that might have been given.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Lady has complained about the method by which we organised the debate. Does she accept that the fact that abortion law is within the scope of the Bill is a matter for the House authorities, not for the Government? That decision has been taken and we must address abortion in the Bill. The arrangements in the Order Paper, proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and myself, admittedly with some complexity because this is a complex subject, provide a wide range of opportunities to allow the Committee to have a properly conducted debate and to reach a decision after considering all the options.
Does the hon. Lady further accept that neither she, from the Opposition Front Bench, nor the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) from the Opposition Back Benches, nor anyone else has put forward the slightest alternative or constructive suggestion as to how the debate might be arranged? When the Business Committee met to


discuss the matter, the sum total of the Labour party's contribution to marshalling debate was shown by the fact that not a single member of the Labour party selected for that Business Committee turned up for the meeting.

Ms. Richardson: We did not come to that Business Committee meeting because we did not want to be a party to such action.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that the Government have tried to give the Committee every opportunity and every option. I appreciate that, but it has made the whole position tonight more complicated and more chaotic. If the Government believe that, by allowing abortion into the Bill through extending its long title, people who are per se anti-abortion will go away, they are wrong.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: The hon. Lady said that no hon. Member can give an undertaking that, if we were to achieve a significant result tonight, we would go away. While it is true that any private Member may present a Bill—no hon. Member would dispute that—the hon. Lady must appreciate that the grievous pressure from which Parliament has suffered as a result of a series of non-decisions over the years has been caused not simply by the fact that one hon. Member presented a Bill. Rather it has been caused by the huge feeling in the House that a decision had to be taken and because outside the House a great deal of pressure was being mounted by pro-life groups. That is what caused the pressure. A single private Member's Bill does not cause that pressure.
Therefore, even if an hon. Member decided to present a private Member's Bill, unless it was backed by the pro-life movement, it would not be a particular pressure on the House. What would be the benefit of returning to Parliament in a short while if Parliament has already taken a clear decision?

Ms. Richardson: In spite of what the hon. Lady has said, I still think that some hon. Member, perhaps not her——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: This one here, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).

Ms. Richardson: As my hon. Friend says, that one there. Perhaps an hon. Member will present a Bill to the House with further restrictions. There may well be pressures from outside.

Mr. Alton: rose——

Ms. Richardson: If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is going to ask me to give way, the answer is no.
The Government have plainly given in to what they believe is pressure. They have overlooked the fact that the overwhelming majority of people, particularly women, want to leave the Abortion Act 1967 as it is.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose——

Sir Bernard Braine: rose——

Ms. Richardson: No, I shall not give way.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will the hon. Lady give way now?

Ms. Richardson: No, I shall return to the right hon. Gentleman later. I am sure that he will have some reason to rise later.
The Government's deal will achieve nothing. With the number of Divisions that we shall have tonight, we could even end up with very bad law,. The Minister rather suggested that we might come up with what she called "loose ends" that may have to be tied up. I believe that we shall come up with bad law, and perhaps with law that has been made by mistake. People may go into one Lobby believing that they will achieve their aim when they should go into another Lobby. The voting will be extremely complicated. There must be about a dozen idiots' guides, trying to advise people on both sides of the debate how to vote, going round the House.

Sir Bernard Braine: rose——

Ms. Richardson: The pendulum system swings from 18 to 28 weeks, from 20 to 26 weeks and from 22 to 24 weeks. That could result in mistaken voting and we shall be then be stuck with the law, despite the Minister's promise to tie up the loose ends.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to me earlier. She and I have been in the House long enough to know that the House has given a Second Reading to abortion reform Bills, often by a substantial majority, yet those Bills have then been sabotaged by a relatively small minority of determined Members. As no Government were ready to give extra time, as was done with the Abortion Bill in 1966–67, all the other Bills failed. The will of the majority in the House was completely frustrated time and again by the hon. Lady, in her customarily charming way, and by numbers of her colleagues, contrary to the will of the British people.

Ms. Richardson: Plenty of private Members' Bills receive a Second Reading, but are blocked later.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) had one and look what happened.

Ms. Richardson: That is right. The Bill of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) was blocked. Bills are constantly blocked by the Government Whips, who do not even say who they are. It has always been considered that abortion would naturally fall within private Members' legislation. With private Members' Bills, one has to take one's chance with the procedures of the House.
We may end up tonight with a law that we shall be stuck with and that we do not want. More importantly, women outside will be stuck with it. It is an insult to women that the Government should bring forward this lottery system to decide a matter that will have such a long-term effect on women's lives.
New clause 4 is more restrictive than the Abortion Act 1967. Under the Act, for example, a registered medical practitioner may terminate a pregnancy if he or she is of the opinion that it is necessary to save the life of the woman or
to prevent grave permanent damage to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
In other words, a time limit does not operate. New clause 4 is said to be the main core of the proposal. Under new clause 4, a medical practitioner may act to prevent "grave permanent injury" to the "physical or mental health" of the pregnant woman only up to the end of the 24th week.


I realise that the new clause could be amended later, but the proposal is monstrous and the new clause must be amended back to the position under the 1967 Act.
Under new clause 4, after the 24th week, a woman suffering from, for example, serious and progressive kidney disease, serious and deteriorating lung disease or certain types of congenital heart disease, which may be aggravated by the stress of pregnancy, would not be able to have an abortion. Those conditions may not only worsen during pregnancy, but may be diagnosed during pregnancy. That is especially so in the case of the HIV positive mother, as health authorities are increasingly informing women of the risks of pregnancy and AIDS and more women may seek tests during pregnancy. We must consider those matters with the utmost seriousness to ensure that we get the law absolutely right.
There is one point—there are probably several others—on which, although I tried to follow the Minister's speech carefully, I am still not clear. There is a possibility that at least one of the amendments—amendment (f)—is misleading or defective. It is intended to ensure that there is no time limit when there is a threat of "grave permanent injury" to a woman's health. I have taken advice and it seems that amendment (f) may be affected by paragraph (a) of new clause 4, and would therefore be subject to the time limits for which hon. Members vote—in other words, 18 or 24 weeks, or whatever. I seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that amendment (f) would ensure that this ground was exempt from the time limits restriction.
As a result of the complexity of the procedure—the Secretary of State asked why I did not propose something different—I tried to construct amendments to be taken first, which would have formed a package. That package would have included 24 weeks, but would also have included the maximum number of exceptions for 28 weeks and the maximum number of exceptions with no time limit.
I tabled my amendments, which was difficult in the context of new clause 4. I now find that only two parts of my package have been included in your selection of amendments, Mr. Walker. I am not suggesting that you deliberately added to the complexity as I know that you would not want to do that. However, it is an illustration of what happens when we try to amend a new clause that we do not want by means of a package of amendments. I understand that you, Mr. Walker, from your position as Chairman of Ways and Means, may not have appreciated that my amendments were a package and should have been taken in that sense. We are stuck with our present selection, which makes everything more complicated.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am not returning to the argument about procedure. It is a bit unsatisfactory if the answer to the hon. Lady's question waits until the end of the debate, thus leaving continuing doubt about amendment (f). Amendments (f) and (g) both relate to the new category of "grave permanent injury" to the health of the woman. Amendment (f) would follow the word "or" in line 6. It would not, therefore, be governed by the reference to the "twenty-fourth week" in paragraph (a). It is important to confirm that amendment (f) would have the effect of introducing no time limit in the case of "grave permanent injury" to health. Amendment (g) would introduce a time limit of 28 weeks. The House must make a choice between those or the 24 weeks in the new clause.

Ms. Richardson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying that point. Again, the position is complex, as the Secretary of State has given us two options and we shall have to get our heads round that later.
I want hon. Members to look carefully at what we are doing. We are threatening the lives and futures of countless thousands of women who may need an abortion now or in the future. If we decide to bring clown the present upper time limit from 28 to 24 weeks, we shall deny the possibility of an abortion to a very small, but important, number of women and young girls. In 1988, the latest year for which we have published statistics, only 23 women had abortions over 24 weeks.
There are young girls who become pregnant without knowing that they are pregnant. They may have had irregular periods, a not uncommon phenomenon in teenage girls. They may have unsupportive parents and be afraid of revealing that they are pregnant. They may feel unable to go to their GP or find it hard to locate a doctor—not just one, but two doctors—who will terminate their pregnancy. All such events lead to delays that may take them over the 24th week.
When discussing the failure of young girls to recognise pregnancy, we must not overlook the stance of some hon. Members, which suggests that they are against sex education in schools. If we had more such education, more girls and young women would be better able to appreciate their sexuality and the way in which their bodies function.
The Brook advisory centre points out in a paper the fear that many young women have at the discovery of an unwanted pregnancy. They fear the rejection of friends, families, boy friends and even school mates, remembering that some of them are still at school. For many, that rejection can mean homelessness, poverty and isolation. Are we to turn our backs, by reducing the upper time limit from 28 to 24 weeks, on that handful of young people?

5 pm

Ms. Short: I understand that the overwhelming majority of post-24 week abortions in recent years have occurred as the result of the late detection of severe foetal abnormality. We must also bear in mind in that context the categories of whom my hon. Friend has spoken, including very young girls, often having been sexually abused, who become pregnant and do not know it. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that if the Government's new clause is approved, girls as young as 11 and 12 might be forced to complete their pregnancies?

Ms. Richardson: Yes, that is my reading of the Government's proposal. I am greatly concerned that, at such a vulnerable age, young girls will not be protected.
Women in the menopause who become pregnant come within that small number who presented themselves in 1988 for abortion after the 24th week. Many women think that irregular periods are normal in the menopause, as they are, but sometimes they find that they are pregnant. They can then be horrified because their families may be settled, they may have grown-up children or they may need the money that they earn and be unable easily to leave work. They suddenly find that instead of being in the menopause, as they thought, they are pregnant.
I have given details of a case of a 42-year-old married woman with children aged 21 and 20. She had successfully used a diaphragm for 25 years and did not suspect that it had let her down. She missed four periods, did a test and


was horrified to find that she was pregnant. She was opposed to abortion, but, because of her family circumstances—she also had aged and ailing parents for whom to care—she decided after several counselling sessions to request an abortion. Under the new clause, she and women in a similar position could not have an abortion. Many family circumstances lead people to decide to have an abortion, and the present social provision must be available.
Let us not forget the distress that has been caused through delay in the National Health Service. It often depends on the part of the country in which one lives—[Interruption.] I am amazed to see at least a couple of hon. Ladies on the Government Benches expressing dissent, even smiling, at that remark, as though it were an old wives' tale. I assure them that it is not.
People who live in the west midlands find it more difficult to get an abortion than those living elsewhere, in the north or in the south. Imagine finding oneself pregnant and being unable to find a doctor or hospital willing to treat one, or having little money and being unable to travel to a different part of the country to obtain an abortion.
Even if we reduce the time limit to 24 weeks, the same problems will arise—but for more women. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the Pregnancy Advisory Service and other organisations in the charitable sector are not permitted to do terminations after 24 weeks. Both those advisory services have compiled an interesting and moving dossier of cases that illustrate the problems that women face through delays or obstruction in the NHS, through doctors failing to diagnose pregnancy, through failure by patients to recognise pregnancy, through failure of methods of contraception or failed pregnancy tests, as the result of menopausal problems or because the females concerned are very young. I have cited some cases, but there are many more.
It is well known that many surgeons err on the side of caution because of the law—as they do not want to be caught by the law—and in practice allow a four-week or, at the least, a two-week margin. So in practice, 24 weeks become 20 or 22 weeks in terms of the operation that the surgeon will perform. Or a 20 or 22-week limit would become in practice an 18-week limit, and an 18-week limit—should the House agree to that tonight—could become a 14-week limit. That would greatly affect many necessitous women.
In an ideal world, there would be no need for late abortions. This is not an ideal world, and in 1988, 84 per cent. of all abortions were performed at under 13 weeks; 14 per cent. were performed at between 13 and 20 weeks; and, as I said, 1·7 per cent. were performed at over 20 weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) tabled an amendment which I hoped the House would discuss and approve. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) also tabled a new clause, which allows women to have an abortion up to the end of the 12th week without seeking approval from a second doctor. Those who support the Abortion Act 1967, and who would like to see it liberalised, would strongly support it because we believe that it is the best way to reduce the number of late abortions, by allowing women to ask a doctor—one doctor—to give permission for them

to have an abortion without the need to seek approval from a second doctor. That practice is followed in many European countries with beneficial results. I regret that we shall not have an opportunity tonight to discuss those matters.
We must make provision for those women, some of whose cases I have described, including women who require an abortion after an amniocentesis test and who need time to decide whether to continue with a pregnancy. A woman will have an anmiocentesis test at 16 weeks. If it is discovered that she is carrying a mentally or physically handicapped child, she is given the offer of an abortion. If we set the limits too tightly, such a woman will not even have time to reflect on whether to have an abortion.

Miss Widdecombe: Is not that problem easily solved by doing what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and myself propose, which is now incorporated in the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and exempting from the restrictions the severe disabilities that would be revealed by amniocentesis, so that for those women there is no change in the law?

Ms. Richardson: I shall look at that. It sounds all right, but why was it not in the new clause? The way in which the clause is presently phrased is ridiculous. We are leaving it to the lottery of whether an amendment is carried. That is the whole point. There may be some good amendments that we could carry, but will we carry them and will people know exactly what we are doing?
We do not want women who are carrying babies who turn out to be damaged to have a pistol at their heads and to be told, "You are going to have a physically or mentally handicapped baby and you must have an abortion tomorrow or you will not be within the time limit." That could happen if our attitude is too tight and not relaxed enough. We must ensure that it will turn out for the best for those women.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will think seriously about the effect of their votes tonight. Labour party policy is clearly to defend the 1967 Act. Some of my hon. Friends consider that that is a matter of conscience for them. If I were in that position, and I am not, I should also want to consider the difficulties in which many women find themselves—difficulties that are often inflicted on them by irresponsible men who do not have to face the traumatic consequences.
If I were to exercise my conscience, I should also want to ask myself whether my conscience was more important than considerations involving the quality of women's lives. There could also be a conscience consideration for women now and in the future, which hon. Members will overlook if they vote to restrict the law. I beg them to take that into account when they vote tonight. I know that such hon. Members who exercise a conscience clause on this sensitive issue have compassion. I hope that they will extend that compassion to unlucky or unfortunate women who may be precluded from much-needed medical assistance.
Last night there was a march through London to defend abortion rights. It was called at relatively short notice for a march. However, 2,000 to 3,000 women turned up to defend the 1967 Act. They were young, middle-aged and even older. They and their families represent the women who will be affected by our votes tonight. Their fears and anxieties must be reflected by us, as their only


way of expressing their fears is through us—they cannot speak for themselves or vote in this Chamber. We must not let them down.
I repeat that a vote for 24 weeks will effectively mean a 20 or 22-week limit in practice. A vote for a 22 or 20-week limit will mean a 20 or 18-week limit in practice. An 18-week limit will mean a 16 or 14-week limit in practice. Women will be denied an abortion if we vote for those reductions.
On the radio this morning the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) said, "We will save 3,000 women from an abortion." Those 3,000 women who want an abortion will have to resort to the back streets. That is not to put it in too terrifying a way.
I appeal to hon. Members to think carefully, to vote very carefully, to use the guidance that suits them and to ensure that we come out of the horrendous evening that faces us with law that we really can live with.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for the way in which he has tried to give both sides an opportunity to put their views on the amendments. Had he merely approached the votes in an ascending or descending order, as we reached some compromise mid way, one section would have said, "But our opinions were never put to the test." The fact that my right hon. and learned Friend has devised what is called the complex pendulum has at least ensured that both sides have an opportunity to put their views to the test. That is desirable and I should like to record my gratitude.
5.15 pm
The aspect that I find most worrying is that in the two opening speeches there was mention of the rights of women, individual hon. Members', rights of conscience and of their beliefs, but no mention of the unborn child. It is as though we are determined to conduct the debate by turning away from the main issue, which is at what point, if at all——

Ms. Short: It is not the main issue.

Miss Widdecombe: It is the main issue. At what point, if at all, do the rights of the unborn child prevail over those of the mother?

Ms. Short: If at all?

Miss Widdecombe: I said "if at all"—that is the main issue.
It is distressing that we have not discussed the basis on which we can decide whether a child's rights prevail. The only test that has been mentioned, and it was mentioned largely in the context of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, is that of viability. We should look at the context in which some of us wish to move a change. There is already in our law a recognised limitation of a woman's rights over those of her child at a certain time. For example, if anything goes wrong at birth, as it did in a case of Christie Nolan, no matter how grievously handicapped the child, no matter how appalling the circumstances of the mother, no matter if the mother has recently been deserted by her partner, no matter what the awful circumstances are, at that point we recognise that the child has full human rights.
Under our current law—the 1929 Act rather than the 1967 Act—two months before that point is reached we say that the rights of the child prevail. Some hon. Members think that that is right. Some hon. Members think that the limit is too low, and some hon. Members think that it is much too high. We already have in our law a recognised limitation of the rights of the mother over the child. We must ask whether we have drawn the line in the right place or whether it needs moving. That is what the first six amendments address.
The line was set down in 1929, and it was a perfectly reasonable line to be imposed at that time. Before the 28th week there is a very low possibility of a child surviving. It needs considerable modern science and assistance to breathe and survive. In 1929, such aids were extremely rudimentary, so it was a reasonable limit at that time.
Since then, however, medical science has advanced considerably and we now have situations in which children can be kept alive very much earlier and sustain permanent survival. There are other criteria on which we would judge lower limits, but the issue is between the 22nd and the 24th week if we are talking about permanent viability, which I do not necessarily accept as a definition.
There seems to be some confusion. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has made considerable reference to 24 weeks being the point of viability. However, in a written answer to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) in January this year, the point of viability at which an infant could sustain survival was put at 22 weeks. Two issues are involved. First, if the Minister stands by that written answer, it makes no sense to talk about viability while in the same breath setting the limit at 24 weeks.
Secondly, laying aside the politics of this issue for a moment, the whole House wants the principle of this issue to be resolved for some time to come. Given that we can now keep children alive at 22 weeks, and given the gradual improvements and advances in technology, is it sensible to set a level above that at which the Minister has already admitted that there can be viability? If we are looking for a piece of good law——

Mr. Doran: Regardless of what the Minister may have said, I am sure that the hon. Lady is well aware that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists made a statement at the end of last year that made it clear that although technical advances may enhance the survival rate above 24 weeks, it is unlikely that there would be any possibility of extra-uterine survival below 24 weeks.

Miss Widdecombe: We are talking not only about probability but about what happens. The Minister would not have given an answer based on something conjured out of thin air. We know that it is possible to sustain viability——

Mrs. Mahon: rose——

Miss Widdecombe: I should like to finish my point because I should like to answer the interventions of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran).
Although admittedly in a small number of cases, it is possible to sustain viability below the 24th week. However, I should like to take the matter further. First, if the Minister is talking about viability, she must stick by the answer that was given by her Department. Secondly, setting a limit above that for viability does not make any sense in long-term law. Is "permanent viability" a good


method? Once again, there is a clear contradiction in our laws and in the interpretation of them. I think that the Minister will accept that until recently, the words
capable of being born alive
in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 were interpreted by the medical profession and the law as meaning "capable of sustaining survival". However, we have recently had the ruling of Mr. Justice Brooke, who put a different interpretation on the law and said, "No, if a child is capable"—

Mrs. Mahon: rose——

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Miss Widdecombe: If I may finish my point, I shall then give way to my hon. Friend for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), if he will remind me.
Mr. Justice Brooke said, "No, the point at which a child is capable of being born alive is the point at which it can survive independently of its mother, even if only for a short period." If we take that as a definition, we are no longer talking about 22 weeks—we are talking about something substantially lower.

Mr. Thurnham: The only point on which I agree with my hon. Friend is that there is too much abortion in this country. Where I differ from her is that she feels that the solution to that problem is to send doctors to prison. It is most important that she should not mislead herself and the House by getting her facts wrong. My hon. Friend spoke about the case to which she is now referring on 27 March—it is the case of Rance v. the Mid-Downs health authority. She told the House that Mrs. Rance had asked the doctors to abort her son and to their credit the doctors refused. That is wrong because as a result of administrative delays the doctors had not told Mrs. Rance that she had a pregnancy with a handicap in the foetus. Because it was running so close to the 28-week limit, the doctors decided not to tell Mrs. Rance. Therefore, she was not in a position even to have asked for the abortion. The hon. Lady is wrong. She should therefore withraw her allegation against Mrs. Rance and not mislead herself and the House with her argument.

Miss Widdecombe: During this debate I do not think that I have mentioned the lady that the hon. Gentleman has now named. I was specifically addressing myself to the terms of Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling. The crucial issue is whether that ruling now overtakes the previously accepted definition. The particular cases to which it might be applied do not matter until we have established the principle. Furthermore, neither now nor in any previous debate can I recall talking about locking up doctors. When we have changed the law, I believe that the doctors will abide by the law and in those circumstances, I see no good reason for locking them up.
Therefore, we have a problem with the definition of "viability", and with the definition of
capable of being born alive".
We also have a problem about where to set any future limits. However, before turning to that, I should like to consider some of the problems that are occurring as a result of our present very muddled and in my view very bad abortion laws. At the moment——

Ms. Short: rose ——

Miss Widdecombe: I shall not give way because I should like to finish this point.
At the moment, a child in an incubator can be kept alive, loved and cherished with all the resources of medical science being devoted to saving it, while a child of identical age and identical gestation in the womb has no rights and can be destroyed. There is something wrong with a law which allows that degreee of inequity between two individuals who are exactly the same except that we can see one and we cannot see the other. That law has to be wrong. Therefore, we must bring about a situation in which there is at least equality. At present, we have a law which states that a child who is seen is protected but that a child at an identical stage who is not seen is not protected.
Perhaps the issue is not whether one can or cannot see the child. Perhaps at that stage the issue is whether the child is wanted or not wanted. If there is no objective criterion for saying that two children of identical development are different, bringing the issue down to a matter of human perception and saying, " I perceive this to be a human being because I want it" or, " I perceive this not to be a human being because I do not want it" is extremely dangerous on all ethical and social grounds, whether religious or not.
I do not want to raise the temperature of the debate by drawing difficult analogies, but there is a clear analogy to be drawn. The analogy is of racism everywhere, where one individual perceives another as less worthy of respect or less naturally possessed of rights because they are of a different colour——

Mrs. Mahon: rose

Miss Widdecombe: I will give way in a moment. It is purely perception——

Mrs. Mahon: rose——

Miss Widdecombe: I intend to give way to the hon. Lady because I want to hear her argument. If we are defining humanity in terms of individual perceptions, wants and not wants, that is dangerous.

Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Lady is aware that any baby born prematurely needs a great deal of care and attention, so why did she vote for the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, which will take resources away from such babies, and why she has never put to the House an argument for more resources for the hospitals which cannot take care of all the premature babies born at the moment?

Miss Widdecombe: If I take interventions about other laws and other measures, I shall be wasting my time. I do not intend to be distracted from the major issue today, which is the rights of the unborn child, because of the defence of Health Service reforms which I have made in the House on many occasions.
The law states that it is an offence to destroy a child who is capable of being born alive, yet in the NHS it is permitted to administer lethal injections to babies before an abortion to ensure that they are born dead. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State this question. If a doctor does not believe that the child whom he is about to abort is capable of being born alive, why seek to kill it with a lethal injection in the first place? Is


there any answer to that? Is it not an example of the extreme muddle of our laws? Quite apart from their ethical status, there is clearly a prize muddle.

Ms. Primarolo: Is the hon. Lady insinuating that doctors deliberately give lethal injections to foetuses so as to escape the current law that a foetus capable of being born and sustaining life after birth cannot be terminated? Is she making that accusation against the medical profession?

Miss Widdecombe: I am making a straightforward statement that if a doctor believes that a child is not capable of being born alive, he has no need to give it a lethal injection, so one presumes that if he gives it a lethal injection he is trying to prevent a child capable of being born alive from being so born.

Mr. Alton: To help the hon. Lady on that point, perhaps I may inform her that today I received a letter from the Solicitor-General confirming that police investigations are being carried out into an incident described in correspondence between the Solicitor-General and us. The case involved a baby of 27½ weeks being stabbed to death through the wall of the womb with potassium chloride during so-called selective reduction. That took place in the City of London just a few weeks ago.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that further information. I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health that that case is the subject of a formal inquiry and that the House will hear more of it when that inquiry comes to a conclusion.

Ms. Short: rose——

Miss Widdecombe: I now wish to deal with a case which is established and has been the subject of affidavits, a coroner's inquiry, two debates in the House and ministerial statements. It is therefore absolutely sustainable and no detail has been left unturned. I refer to the case of the Carlisle baby.

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I shall not give way for some time. I will take interventions later.
I wish to address myself to the case of the Carlisle baby.[Interruption.] The degree of disorder prevailing on the Opposition Benches makes me think that Opposition Members are frightened of something in the case of the Carlisle baby. There is something that they do not want to hear.
The Carlisle baby was aborted at 21 weeks' gestation. The grounds for the abortion were handicap, even though it was not certain that handicap was present. Nevertheless, under the 1967 Act the grounds were valid. It is important that hon. Members should understand that. We are talking not about some back-street abortion or something that was done improperly in the Health Service but about a supposedly legal, safe and decent abortion carried out by the NHS in Carlisle city general hospital.
That child of 21 weeks' gestation was born alive, so we may assume that the doctor had not given any lethal injection. When the child was born alive, the two nurses and the doctor on duty on the ward that night did not

know what to do. They had not expected a live birth. Had it been a premature baby from an ordinary early birth, they would have known exactly what to do, but they were confused and distressed because they had expected what they would have termed a foetus and what they got was a baby which gasped and ran a pulse rate for three hours.
What distresses me about that case is that during the three hours for which that little scrap lived she was not in an incubator or in her mother's arms. She was not even—spare us—wrapped up decently in a warm cot. She was on a kidney dish in a side ward for three hours, During that time one of the nurses became so grievously distressed that she carried out a rudimentary baptism. After three hours the child was incinerated. The mother was not told that her child had lived. The child was not registered for birth, nor was she registered for death. Until one of the nurses could finally stand it no longer and took steps to make sure that the issue was brought into the public eye and before a coroner, nothing was done at Carlisle city general hospital about what happened.
I raise that case, not to introduce horror stories but to show that horror can result from our muddled laws. I repeat, had it been an ordinary birth, the doctor and nurses would have known what to do and there would have been no doubts about it. Anyone who can jeer at that case is not giving the matter the serious and humane consideration that it deserves.

Mr. Martin Flannery: It is disputed.

Miss Widdecombe: The case, and the facts to which I have confined myself, are not disputed. If the hon. Gentleman wants proof, he can go now to the Vote Office and ask for the report of the debate on the Carlisle baby on 8 June last year, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health replied. He confirmed all the facts to which I have referred. A late abortion took place and the result was to be a foetus—the language used implies that when a child is wanted it is a baby, but when it is not wanted it is a foetus—and when the result was not a foetus but a baby there was no good practice in place to cope with the situation.
National Health Service guidance says that if abortions are carried out after 20 weeks, resuscitation equipment must be available. The Secretary of State will not license private clinics to carry out abortions after the 20th week if they cannot demonstrate that resuscitation equipment is available. In that case, the limit is 20 weeks. Does that mean that although resuscitation equipment must be available at 20 weeks, it need not be used because no rights are given until 22 or 24 weeks? At 20 weeks, the mother must be offered a funeral for the baby, so some status is given to the 20-week-old unborn child. Why must resuscitation equipment be available and a funeral be offered at 20 weeks when, if amendments allowing abortion after 20 weeks are passed, we shall not safeguard the lives to which we afford those dignities? We shall have a muddled law.

Ms. Short: The hon. Lady will be aware that in some terribly distressing cases foetuses much older than t hose to which she refers are killed because the mother would otherwise die. Does she think that that should be done or not? Should the woman be allowed to die? That is my first question. Secondly, will the hon. Lady be straight with the


House? Does she think that any abortion should be legal, or not? We must know where her arguments are coming from.

Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted to answer the hon. Lady's questions. I was coming to the exemptions that should be allowed. Where the life of the mother is at risk, an exemption should be made—not because I deny that in that case the life of the child is being removed, but in that case I must face a choice between two lives.

Ms. Short: So the hon. Lady is not against all abortion.

Miss Widdecombe: I never have been. I am trying to answer the question. The hon. Lady does not seem to want to hear the answer. I have said that where two lives are at stake, one cannot say that one is pro-life if one immediately condemns one of them. If there are two lives in conflict, one cannot rule out the possibility of an abortion. I do not deny that people elsewhere may be against it, but no hon. Member is against abortion to save the life of the mother.
In answer to the hon. Lady's second question, I have never concealed my position on abortion. I made it clear to the hon. Member for Barking in a late night Adjournment debate some months ago. I believe that abortion should be available only in the most exceptional circumstances, such as where the life of the mother is at risk and perhaps in one or two other rare cases. That would certainly include cases in which the child suffers from a condition such as anencephaly and would not survive anyway. In those circumstances, I believe that it is humane——

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I will give way in a moment. In those circumstances, I believe that it is humane to allow abortion.
The fact that I am anti-abortion is scarcely a great discovery today. It has been known for some time. We are drawing a line and fighting only late abortions for exactly the same reasons as a teetotaller will join a moderate drinker to combat abuse. Those who share my views are joining others who do not share those views so as to combat the worst abuses, which are encapsulated in the Carlisle baby case. This is tremendously serious. If any hon. Member is thinking of voting for a limit above the 21st week, I repeat that such a limit would not have saved the Carlisle baby.

Miss Nicholson: May I ask my hon. Friend to comment on two of her points? I would not want her to mislead the House. The purpose of a funeral for a 20-week-old aborted baby, whether a natural or unnatural abortion, is to help the mother cope with her grief, not to award rights to the child. She says that she would allow abortion in cases of anencephaly where the child cannot live. I must tell her that anencephaly is not necessarily a cause of death. A baby born with no brain in my constituency is nearly two and I know of another who was born without a brain who has already reached nine years. How can she cope with that statement?

Miss Widdecombe: I have to cope according to the advice that in some cases the child cannot survive either

the full nine months of pregnancy or birth. All I am saying is that in such a case I am confronted not with a choice between life and no life, but between no life and no life, and I do not find that particularly difficult.

Mr. David Martin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry, but I wish to make some progress because I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak.
The second difficulty with the definition of viability arises from the percentage of children surviving prostaglandin abortions where no lethal injection is administered.

Mr. Martin: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry—

Mr. Martin: I have never tried to intervene in any of the hon. Lady's speeches.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.

Miss Widdecombe: I must ask my hon. Friend to resume his seat. It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that I have given way a great deal and now intend to make rapid progress.
It is difficult to extract from the Department of Health information on the percentage of children born alive following prostaglandin abortions. When the prostaglandin tests were being done and prostaglandins were being introduced, the medical perception, as exemplified in many articles and writings, was the danger of live births. I ask the House to note the language used. The "danger" was that of live births. Tests run in the United States on prostaglandin abortions, where no lethal injection is involved, show a survival rate of up to 8 per cent.
Will the Secretary of State come clean about the survival rate for such abortions in this country? Does he perceive it to be a problem? If there is a survival rate and if Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling is accepted—that a child capable of surviving independently of its mother for a short period is capable of being born alive—is not prostaglandin abortion in clear opposition to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929? Could that please be taken on board when the Minister replies?
Although there has been much discussion of absolute principles, this is a case of extremely bad law being applied and not even being policed in its own right. There is precious little will in the Department to ensure that the joint workings of the 1967 Act and of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 marry well and are implemented. It refuses to address the vital questions of lethal injections, of live births during prostaglandin abortions and of children under 24 weeks who survive, all of which need to be addressed in reaching our decisions today.
The exemptions are important. I did not want to exempt all severe disability from the requirement. However, in the Committee on the Bill of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, (Mr. Alton), we took on board what had been said on Second Reading. Many hon. Members had said that they would vote for a lower limit if and only if severe disability which could be detected by the amniocentesis test was excluded. At the end of the Second Reading debate the hon. Gentleman undertook to address the concerns of the House during further stages.


On that basis he asked for, and was granted, a Second Reading. Since then we have always said that we believe in the exemption of severe handicap from whatever limits the House decides to impose, subject only to the requirements of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.
5.45 pm
The hon. Member for Barking suggested that that was not covered in the new clause. I understand that paragraph (c), where the provision is:
if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped
takes that point on board. However, it does not take it on board with the safeguards that my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and I would have wished. Although we shall support the exemption because we said that we would, we want to see the nature of the disability specified on the form, and we shall raise that again on Report.
On several occasions during the passage of his Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill claimed that doctors were aborting for hare-lip and club-foot. Everyone said, "Oh, nonsense—the medical profession would not do that." Not long ago there was a great to-do in the national press because Guy's hospital advertised for mothers to come forward with children suffering from hare-lips and facial deformities to have pre-natal surgery, of which we are all in favour. They asked those mothers to come forward because they were considering abortions for those reasons. Did the Department of Health inquire whether abortions for such trivial reasons were encompassed by the 1967 Act'? No—it was allowed to pass by.
If the disability must be declared on the form, we shall be able to see the difference between spina bifida and hare-lip. That must be so. We are pledged to keep our promise to exempt severe disability, so we shall vote for that exemption today, but on Report we shall wish to return to the matter merely to ensure that the disability is severe.

Ms. Harman: Will the hon. Lady make her position clear? She referred to new clause 4(1)(c) which provides for an abortion where it is suspected that a foetus would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. Is she saying that she will not support amendment (j), which would reduce the time limit for serious foetal abnormality to 24 weeks, when some foetal abnormalities cannot be detected? Will she vote for or against amendment (j)?

Miss Widdecombe: At present we are recommending that amendment (j) is supported. We have always said that these exemptions should be made subject to the requirements of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. Even if the House tonight sets an 18-week limit, there will be exemptions up to that level determined by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. We are trying to decide what that level should be. Currently it is 28 weeks, so we would say, "All right—exempt up to 28 weeks." If by any chance it comes down to 24 weeks, we would say, "Exempt up to 24 weeks." However, where there is a chance of grave permanent injury to the mother or where her life is in question, we support the emergency provisions to a much later stage.
I agree with the hon. Member for Barking that we have a complex series of amendments and we must judge each

according to what has gone before. That is why I suport amendment (j). I do not do so because we want to reduce the limit artificially as I suspect that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 will be changed tonight. We made the pledge to accept exemptions from whatever limit we decide up to that imposed by the 1929 Act as well as exemptions regarding serious risk to the mother beyond that time limit. I gave way to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) as I believe that new clause 4(c) deserves further consideration, but I must now make some progress.
We also pledged that we would make an exemption to the time limit for cases involving rape and incest. When we examined the clause produced by the Secretary of State we found no reference to rape or incest. We therefore asked the Secretary of State if rape or incest was covered by new clause 4. The Department informed us that it was, but when we looked at it we were not happy and therefore we have introduced specifically amendment (s). That makes the exemption specific beyond all doubt, as it is not encapsulated in some other phrase about grave physical injury. We have made the exemptions specific and we have kept faith with the House by introducing those concessions asked of us which we believe we should make.
There has been a lot of misinformation, especially in the press in recent days, and it is important to stress that severe handicap is exempted beyond our limit and up to the 1929 Act limit. Rape and incest are also exempted under the specific amendment (s).

Mr. Alton: I congratulate the hon. Lady on the clarity with which she is taking the House through this difficult series of amendments. Some Members on the Opposition Benches have recently introduced a Bill to extend abortion up to birth, but that is not the issue before the House tonight. Although many of us may have difficulties with specific exemptions and may not agree with the particular principles, the issue before the House, to which the hon. Lady has rightly drawn attention, is the upper time limit. In that respect, will she repeat her intention to seek clarification on Report about what constitutes disability, as many people outside the House will be concerned because the Carlisle baby was aborted at 21 weeks gestation with a non-inherited and in no way life-threatening skin disorder?

Miss Widdecombe: I can confirm that we shall wish on Report merely to ensure that severe disability means just that. We shall not negative any clause exempting disability, but the specific agreement reached among those of us who feel strongly about this is that that disability should be specified. I do not believe that a doctor would put down the disability as spina bifida if it was a hare-lip, so we shall obtain some control of what is going on if the disability is specified.
I have addressed myself to the complex series of amendments before the House. It is true that we may, at the end of the debate, finish up with something which needs further refinement in terms of coherence, consistency and workability.

Mr. Doran: rose——

Miss Widdecombe: I will give way, but this is the last time.

Mr. Doran: The hon. Lady has consistently used the word "we", and I am sure that she is not using it in the


same way as the Prime Minister. It would be helpful to us to know who she means when she speaks of "we". Earlier this year the hon. Lady gave an interview to The Times on this subject and she was asked about the abortion amendment being added to the Bill. She said, "We shall go away for a while if the Government concede the debate." Who does "we" mean, and what does "for a while" mean? How long will it be before we discuss the issue again?

Miss Widdecombe: We are not a grandmother——

Mr. James Pawsey: Yet.

Miss Widdecombe: Nor ever, I am afraid.
I am sure that most hon. Members understand that, when I said "we", I meant that group of hon. Members who have pioneered Bills on this issue and who have talked to other hon. Members who broadly support their approach. They have forged out what is and is not accepable. I was referring to hon. Members including the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who regrettably is absent, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and many others who share similar views.
As to what is meant by "for a while", how long is a piece of string? A decent interval must mean just that. We, I or anyone may go to Government again to say that the House wants to take a decision on this matter and must do so, but if we simply get into the habit of coming back with a whole load of similar or different proposals, frankly we would not deserve the trust of Government, nor would I expect to receive it. Therefore, "for a while" means a decent interval.
So far I have devoted time to the various amendments and I have spoken about 20 weeks, 22 weeks and 24 weeks. Finally I should like to consider the question of 18 weeks. That limit has not been dreamt up as some sort of arbitrary line. When the hon. Member for Mossley Hill was considering the subject of late abortions, he had to ask himself, what is a late abortion and where does it start? The figure of 18 weeks had come up in the Lane committee and it is the period beyond which growth but no further development takes place. That figure seemed to be a few weeks away from the point that medical science had reached as being able to sustain viability. Looking forward to the future, and in the desire for long-term law, 18 weeks seemed a reasonable limit.
The Second Reading of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill was marked by excellent contributions from all sides and two arguments were presented against the 18-week limit—disability and the amniocentesis test. We have conceded the argument on disability and the amniocentesis test and they have been taken out of the debate. The other arguments against the 18-week limit related to menopausal women, young girls and rape victims. We have specifically introduced an amendment relating to rape in amendment (s) because we were not satisfied with the clause introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. When we looked at the statistics relating to abortions carried out on menopausal women and young children we found that the percentages were so low—0·4 per cent. and 0·5 per cent., respectively—that that argument was not worth pursuing.
It is important to remind the House of one fact. We are told that late abortions are principally due to delays in the National Health Service. Some 50 per cent. of abortions carried out after the 18th week are done on non-resident women who come here to get around the laws in their own countries.

Ms. Short: So what?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady may think that that is all right, but it is important to remember that those women have not been subject to delays in the NHS. The 8 per cent. of abortions conducted because of severe foetal abnormality will not be affected by the proposals that we have put forward. As great a variety of reasons are presented for the remainder of late abortions as there are for those at an earlier stage.
Given that we have exempted from the limit the major consideration of disability, and given that we need a law which will last and not need to be revised on the basis of some cataclysmic advance in medical science next week or next year, I ask the House to consider seriously the 18-week limit. Beyond that, the House should go no higher than the limit of 20 weeks, at which we give the dignity of a funeral and insist that resuscitation equipment be available.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: We have all sorts of protection at the 20th week. If we go for the 22nd week, we are doing no more than accepting the Secretary of State's statement about where viability starts.

Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Lady give way to the Member representing Carlisle?

Miss Widdecombe: I urge hon. Members to think hard, when they vote today, about what it is that they are talking about. We are not talking about some abstract view of women's rights, nor even about conscience or religion, but about a living mortal in the womb whom we cannot see——

Mr. Martlew: On a point of order.

Miss Widdecombe: That living mortal is there in the womb. It cannot protect itself and it deserves the protection of the House.

Several hon. Members: rose——

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. I have a point of order from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew).

Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. Is it right that the hon. Lady can quote a case in my constituency at great length and not give way to me?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Whether or not she gives way is in the hands of the hon. Lady.

6 pm

Sir David Steel: It must be said in defence of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe)—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order.

Sir David Steel: I am trying to say a word in defence of the hon. Member for Maidstone, who today made a more moderate speech to advance her view than those which we have listened to and read about outside the House, for which we must be grateful. I have two quarrels with her, which I shall come to later. The first is that she still tries to set herself up as a medical authority, greater than others, on the time limit that the House should accept. Secondly, I would not accuse her of telling horror stories to the House, but I accuse her of telling the same horror story over and over again.

Mr. A. J. Beith: It is a terrible story.

Sir David Steel: It is a terrible story, and it was a ghastly tragedy. But I do not believe that we should set the law based on the one ghastly tragedy of the Carlisle case. There is a raft of experience of the working of abortion law.

Mr. Martlew: That case has deliberately been used by the opponents of abortion. The case was a set-up. The doctor who refused treatment was a member of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. We accept that the foetus should have been put in an incubator and treated. The fact that the case has been used by the anti-abortionists is a slur on the good hospital and the good doctors in it.
The priest involved, who was not the chaplain of that hospital, received evidence about the case in confidence, and he broke that confidentiality. The organisation has used the case time and time again, despite the agony and distress that it caused to the woman involved. Does the House know that the woman was interviewed at great length by the police after the tragedy because of the actions of those involved, who exploited the case? I agree with the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) that it was a tragedy, but it has been used gratesquely by those opposed to abortion at any price, not at 18, 22 or 28 weeks, but altogether. They are using the same tactics again today.

Sir David Steel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his intervention. He made a helpful point, as the local Member of Parliament, about what happened in that hospital. His intervention underlines my point that we should not base future legislation on one experience, however tragic and unhappy. We should consider the totality of experience and the working of the 1929 and 1967 legislation when coming to our decisions tonight.
I hope that the Committee will consider it reasonably appropriate that, as the promoter of the 1966 legislation, I should address myself——

Miss Widdecombe: rose——

Sir David Steel: I shall give way later, but the hon. Lady should let me get going and cover some of my points, in the hope that I can prevent unnecessary interventions.
We should survey what has happened to the practice of abortion since we changed the law in 1967. I start by reminding the House, particularly the hon. Member for Maidstone—she was not a Member of the House when we debated issues such as rape and incest and whether they should be included or excluded from the legislation—that there is nothing new in that argument. The House went over it time and again during the passage of that legislation.
More importantly, I should like to remind the House about the state of the law and the practice on abortion before 1967. We do not have the figures for abortion then, as we have since 1967. One of the stipulations of the 1967 Act was that every abortion had to be recorded and published. However, two surveys were done before 1967. I do not lay claim to their accuracy, but they were published in 1914 and 1940, and both estimated—I stress that it was only an estimate—that there were about 100,000 illegal abortions in this country. That compares with a figure, which many may feel is too high, of 182,000 in England and Wales last year.
There were high numbers of illegal abortions before 1967, and there were none of today's campaigning organisations against abortion in those days. Such organisations have campaigned only against safe, legal abortions, not the illegal ones that happened then I do not have an exact figure of abortions, but I have some accurate figures from the Department of Health that give us a clue about the picture before 1967. The number of women discharged from hospital with post-abortion sepsis in 1965 was 3,050 and in 1982, just 390—10 per cent. of the pre-1967 figure. That gives an indication of the scale of abortion going on, about which we were supposed not to know.
In the three years from 1961 to 1963, 160 women were recorded, in this country as dying as a result of abortions. In the three years from 1985 to 1987, the figure was four. How can anyone say that it has not been a major social advance to have achieved the end of the scourge of illegal abortion in Britain?
The second argument of those who want to reduce the availability of abortion is that in this country we have an exaggeratedly high rate of abortion. I accept that some other countries have lower rates of abortions than we do, but a great many countries have high rates of abortion. I objected to an hon. Lady, who is not present, so I shall not mention her name, saying in the House some weeks ago that this country was a foetal dustbin. I resent and reject such phrases, because the figures do not bear out such claims.
The rate of abortion is measured internationally by the number of abortions per 1,000 women of child-bearing age. Last year, in England and Wales, the figure was 14·8 per thousand women. In Scotland, it was 8·9. The last year for which we have total international figures is, sadly, back in 1983–84, for which the figure for England and Wales was 12·8. In France, in the same period, the figure was 14·9, in East Germany, it was 26·6, in Italy it was 19, in Denmark it was 18·4, in Sweden it was 17·7, in Poland it was 16·5, in Norway it was 15·9, in Czechoslovakia it was 34·5 and in Bulgaria—presumably because of the lack of any family planning policy—it was an appalling 61·9 per thousand.
Let us set the British figures in the context of the legal abortion rate of other European countries. In this country, we are not carrying out an excessive number of abortions, judging by international standards. It is a slur on the practice of medicine in this country to go on repeating and conveying the impression that there is an outrageous level of abortion in Britain.
I think, if I caught her words correctly, that the hon. Member for Maidstone said that 50 per cent. of late abortions were carried out on foreign women. She said that that was not due to delays in the National Health Service, and of course it is not. It stands to reason that, if


people come to this country from other countries, that takes time. Presumably they have undergone processes elsewhere, and then come to this country.
In 1983, before the Spaniards changed their law, exactly 22,000 women from Spain came to this country for illegal abortions. They could not have them in Spain, and no doubt they were among the late abortion figures. Spain then changed its law, and the last figure I have, for 1988, was that that figure of 22,000 women from Spain had come down to 3,000. Figures change as other countries change their law and as the availability of abortion becomes uniformly more accessible throughout Europe.

Mr. Alton: rose——

Sir David Steel: I shall give way when I have finished this point, and my hon. Friend may feel even more inclined to interrupt when he hears my next point. One figure that inflates British abortion figures is the number of women who have to come over from both parts of Ireland—from the Republic, the figure is 3,000 and from Northern Ireland, it is 1,500.

Mr. Alton: Of those women who have children in southern and Northern Ireland, those figures represent a tiny percentage. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell the House that women came from more than 100 different countries to the United Kingdom last year, from as far away as Mongolia and South Africa. That does not suggest a uniformity of law, but that our laws are such that they come to this country because we allow later abortions than anywhere else. Does he agree that the assurance that he gave in the 1967 debates that his legislation would not lead to abortion on demand looks absurd when, at present, one in five pregnancies end in abortion?

Sir David Steel: I shall come to that wider argument in a moment. I have never accepted that the intention of the law in Britain is to provide some sort of worldwide service. The hon. Member for Maidstone made the point that 50 per cent. of the late abortions about which people complain are performed on foreign women who come here because of the accessibility of legal abortions in this country. I do not particularly like that. I should much prefer other countries—they are doing so gradually—to reform their own abortion laws so that women there can seek redress of their difficulties in their own lands. That is a matter for those countries, not for us, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill knows, I have never liked the foreign trade in abortions.
What is the state of the law in other countries? It has not been mentioned much in this debate, but in previous debates opponents of the Abortion Act 1967 have repeatedly said—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said it again a moment ago—that we allow abortions later here than they do in other countries. That is true in some instances, but it is not the whole truth. Those who keep saying that some of our continental neighbours have upper limits of 10 or 12 weeks should quote the whole of their law. It is based on a completely different tenet: on the right of a woman to request an abortion at up to 10 or 12 weeks. If we changed our law to reflect that idea, as some hon. Members advocate, that would naturally cut out many of the delays

that occur. But that is not our law; our laws are different, and we cannot compare them with those that provide obortion on request.
Our laws attempted in 1967 to strike a balance—to make a neutral statement—between the rights of the foetus and those of the woman, and left it to two doctors to judge in any given situation and in good faith whether an abortion was necessary. Hon. Members should not take bits of other people's laws and claim that, because other countries set a figure of 10 or 12 weeks, we allow abortions later than they do. Their whole systems are different. So if hon. Members want to argue for a crippling reduction in the availability of abortion here, they ought to follow through the logic and accept that early abortions should be available on request, as some would argue—although that has never been my argument.
It would be a great mistake—this is where I quarrel with the hon. Member for Maidstone—for the House to set aside the opinion of established medical bodies on the issue of setting a limit of 18 weeks. The survey published in The Lancet of 2 December 1989 showed that only 3 per cent. of members of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists favoured a reduction to 18 weeks; 75 per cent. favoured 24 weeks. The British Medical Associaton is also firmly against 18 weeks and says, correctly, that such a limit would have
an inequitable and adverse effect on those most in need of having their pregnancies terminated".
The representative professional committee on foetal viability, to which the Minister referred, also stressed in 1985 the harmful effects of setting the limit too low. Its report stated:
late attenders are usually the women in greatest need of help—the very young and socially deprived".
We are not entitled to cast aside all these opinions as though they did not matter, or to pluck out of the air a figure that we think might be better——

Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentlemen acknowledge that in 1967 he went against a considerable body of medical opinion and presumably thought it right to do so?

Sir David Steel: Certainly not; I do not accept that for a minute. I worked with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the BMA throughout the passage of the legislation——

Mr. Alton: They were opposed to it.

Sir David Steel: There were differences about bits and pieces of the legislation, but fundamentally these bodies were not opposed to it——

Mr. Alton: Yes, they were.

Sir David Steel: My hon. Friend is beginning to sound like a parrot. The fact is that they did not oppose it. They supported it throughout its passage, and they still do. That is why they study these matters and send recommendations to Members of this House. They are not asking for fundamental changes in the 1967 legislation.
There is concern about the rise in the number of abortions, particularly in the past two years. I rather share that concern, but I do not believe that any hon. Member can suddenly arrive at some correct number of abortions. How would one do that? Each case must be assessed under


the law and considered on its merits. In some cases, I or other hon. Members might not agree with the doctors that an abortion should have been allowed; in other cases, we might think that they made the wrong decision, but under the law, we leave that decision to two doctors acting in good faith.
My worry about the rise in the number of abortions in the past two years relates not to the practice of the Abortion Act but to the declining standards of availability of family planning in this country. The "World in Action" television programme last night had done a survey of health authorities and found that a third of authorities in England and Wales had been reducing the numbers of family planning clinics for cash reasons. It was said that, in one area, there was a waiting list of 18 months to have vasectomies on the NHS, and there have been instances of local authorities under financial pressure reducing their subscriptions to the Family Planning Association and to Brook Advisory Clinics. Moreover, the new core curriculum in secondary schools leaves little time for non-statutory subjects such as sex education, so the picture is one of a rise in unnecessary abortions.
If this were a less male-dominated House, we should have spent less time over the years debating abortion, and far more time discussing family planning facilities. I am convinced that there is a relationship between the unhappy cuts of the past couple of years and the unfortunate increase in the number of abortions. Whether we are caricatured outside this place as pro or anti-abortion—I do not accept the labels—it should be common ground in the House that Ministers and the Department of Health should pay more attention to that relationship.
Finally, I turn to the time limit, and——

Mr. Beith: My right hon. Friend has dealt with the two-doctor provision of the 1967 legislation. He must surely recognise that, under that provision, late abortions have taken place in circumstances that he would not have contemplated as part of that legislation; and that the provision has led to a wide range of assumptions, practised by different doctors, of what reasonable circumstances for an abortion are. If he does not recognise that, he does not recognise the significance that many hon. Members attached to the assurances that he gave in 1967.

Sir David Steel: I go this far with my hon. Friend: I certainly accept that there have been cases—I hinted as much a few moments ago—in which doctors have taken decisions on abortion with which I or my hon. Friend would not have agreed, but the fact is that the onus was put on the medical profession to act in good faith.
I may have said this before, but I distinctly remember going, during the passage of the 1967 Act, to see the secretary of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists perform an operation under pre-1967 legislation. When I saw the case notes in the clinic where he was operating, I told him that I had grave doubts about whether he was acting within the law.
Of course there is room for variation in opinion. All we can say is that we have to rely on the ethics of the medical profession to act in good faith. I accept that, just as there are bad Members of Parliament and clergymen, so there are bad doctors. I regret that, and I have never denied it, but in the main the great majority of doctors are carrying out the intentions of the House as enshrined in the 1967 legislation.
I turn now to the time limits, and I should like to deal in passing with the vexed issue of the situation in Scotland. With great respect to the Minister, I thought that she was not exactly comfortable with this part of her remarks. I stand to be corrected by the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), who is a Scots lawyer, but time limits in Scotland are and always have been a happier subject, legally speaking, than they have been in England. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act does not apply in Scotland; the common law of Scotland makes child destruction a crime. Fortunately, because no time limit has ever appeared in a Scottish statute, there is a degree of flexibility there which has been helpful as medical science has developed.
There has been no need for such a great debate north of the border. I looked up the figures and found that, in 1987, there were only two abortions at over 24 weeks in Scotland. In 1988, there was only one. The issue hardly arises there. This is a peculiarly English and Welsh problem. I do not wish to enter into nationalistic considerations, but I do not understand why that should be so. The problem does not exist in the law of Scotland, and we are wise to leave well alone there.
For England and Wales, we put the provisions of the 1929 Act into the 1967 one. It is right—the Minister put the point fairly—that medical science has moved on a great deal since 1929 and it is now possible with resuscitation equipment to keep alive at least a small proportion—we should not exaggerate this—of those born between the 24th and 28th week of pregnancy. That is why there has been such deep consideration of the workings of the Abortion Act and the time limit by, among others, the Lane committee, which recommended a reduction to 24 weeks. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Medical Association, the 1985 committee to which the Minister referred and the House of Lords Select Committee all recommended 24 weeks.
A wide section of expert opinion appears to have looked into the matter very carefully, and says that there is now a case for reducing the presumption of viability from 28 to 24 weeks. Before I finish on that matter, I again reiterate a point that is widely misunderstood. The fact that there is a presumption of viability in the law at 28 weeks does not mean the reverse. There is no presumption that a foetus is not viable before 28 weeks. That is important.
It is precisely because of that, as the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said, that the medical profession usually allows a two-week safety margin in its judgment below the level that the law states. That is because the profession can be in danger of prosecution even if it is shown that the foetus was below the 28th week of pregnancy. There is no presumption that below that level viability does not exist.
Let us be clear that, whatever decisions we reach, if we go for 24 weeks, which I will support because I think the law should now be changed, we are in practice introducing a clinical procedure in which 22 weeks will become the limit. If we go for 22 weeks the practice will be 20 weeks and so on. That is why I am wholly opposed to 18 weeks or any lower suggestion. That is nothing but a crude attempt to stop the availability of legal abortion to certain categories of women. There is no medical justification for it.
All the expert medical bodies have told us that, whatever the advances in medical science, it will not be


possible to sustain life at such a low limit, except in occasional cases such as the one that has been widely quoted, where it was suggested that a baby survived at 21 weeks. By and large, the general medical opinion is that it is not possible to get any significant number of babies to survive below the 24th week of pregnancy. That is the simple reason why I believe that that is the right term. Anything lower is simply arbitrary and designed to deny women their rights.
It is right that we should have this debate. Hon. Members have been plagued by endless pieces of mail, to put it politely. I in particular have been the target of an extraordinary resurgence of hate mail of the type that I thought I had last seen in the late 1960s. That is life. By and large, the House wishes to come to a conclusion. I shall support the new clause—with some of the amendments, because I do not think that the clause in itself is quite right. I hope that, at the end of the confusion, we will come to a decision and stick to it. There may not be another debate on abortion in this Parliament and, if there is not, the House must turn its attention to the issues of family planning and contraception facilities.

Mr. Cormack: It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). I do not agree with everything that he said, but I have always admired him and he has always sought to act from the best possible motives. Although the Act that he introduced has not been the signal success that I am sure he wished it to be, no one who has paid any attention at all to this matter could accuse him of having acted for anything other than the social good of the nation as he saw it at the time. I speak with some diffidence because the last time that the House devoted a fair amount of time to abortion, I had the difficult task of chairing the Committee that examined the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Gentleman was a good Chairman.

Mr. Cormack: I am grateful for that intervention because it was a difficult task and one had to be impartial. I hope that I was impartial throughout the sittings of the Committee. Because I chaired that Committee, for two years I have refused to make any public utterance on this subject. I did not think it right to give any sign of sympathy for one side or the other. When I chaired that Committee I learned a great deal from both sides. One of the things that I learned was that people felt passionately and, on occasions, spoke with some intolerance and misunderstanding, sometimes deliberate, of other people's opinions, which did not advance either case very much.
I shall try to explain how I see the matter and how I shall vote. First, the interests of the mother are and must be paramount. If there is any question of a mother's life being at risk, then, faced with the ghastly choice of which life is to be ended, it is important to decide that the mother's life should be preserved.
On the second matter I cannot go all the way with the Roman Catholic Church, much as I admire the courage of the statements on moral absolutes that are made frequently by the Pope. Certain categories of women must always be granted abortions. There can be no debate about cases arising from rape and incest. If a woman or a girl has

been violated by a member of her own family or by anybody else and a pregnancy that was never wanted or never sought has been thrust upon her, she must have the chance to have the pregnancy terminated.
If there is evidence of severe abnormality, the family must have the opportunity to take counsel, to consider, and, if necessary, to decide that termination is the right course. In what I would loosely call certain social categories, after careful consideration it might be in the interests of other members of the family for abortion to be contemplated.
However, we are not considering with sufficient care the sanctity of life. I was in the Members' Post Office on Saturday morning when all the parcels arrived and my initial feeling was of great sympathy for the staff. When I opened my parcel I found a legitimate and graphic piece of campaigning, because nobody disputes that that is what a 20-week-old foetus looks like. [Interruption.] If somebody had been able to produce medical evidence that this was a grotesque mock-up that was totally inaccurate and grossly misleading, it would have been the most obscene piece of campaigning that anyone could indulge in. However, nobody has suggested that. When I was in the Post Office yesterday an hon. Member came in, took his parcel, opened it and threw it in the bin. I could not help thinking that this is what happens to many foetuses.
Over the past 23 years, we have developed a new attitude towards the sanctity of life which accords ill with our constant talk about the need to preserve the quality of life. I do not make the ridiculous mistake of blaming the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale for that. That would be absurd. However, I say to him and to other hon. Members that the climate that was partly—and I choose my words carefully—influenced by his Act has degenerated over the past 20 years. People who would never have contemplated abortion then, would do so now.

Mrs. Mahon: If I understand the hon. Gentleman, he is suggesting that there are more abortions now because abortion is legal. Can he explain why there were 1·2 million abortions in Romania in 1989, most of them illegal? Obviously, the rich can always buy safe abortions.

Mr. Cormack: For the sake of other hon. Members, I will not be sidetracked to Romania—a country which I have just visited and which is one of the saddest places that I have ever seen. I shall not talk about the obscene antics of the Ceaucesceu regime and the actions that people were driven to during that time. I am talking about our attitude to life. I am trying to put my case with a degree of calmness and moderation—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that I understand how passionately she feels. I know that she was a member of the nursing profession and must have just as great a concern for life as I have—[Interruption.] We view these matters differently, but she must allow me to develop my speech. I hope that she will have the opportunity to make her speech later.
I was not defending back-street abortions. I understand why the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill—he wanted to combat a terrible social evil. The choice to have an abortion must always be traumatic, and the right hon. Gentleman wanted to introduce a Bill that would make abortion available under proper clinical conditions for


those who needed it. I am suggesting that, unwittingly, his Act has helped to create a climate in which people do not have so great a regard for the sanctity of human life.

Mrs. Mahon: Rubbish.

Mr. Cormack: I do not think that it is rubbish. This is what I mean by the intolerance that these arguments sometimes provoke. The hon. Lady cannot solve the problem or salve her conscience—or, indeed, anyone else's conscience—by shouting, "Rubbish." People now have a much less serious regard for the really important decisions of life. We must recognise that, which is why——

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is because mothers are concerned about the quality of life for their whole families that they have abortions? Women sometimes feel that they cannot continue with another child, so they have an abortion. The law does not make much difference to them, because history shows that, when abortion was not legal, they went to the back-street abortionists. They risked their lives and the freedom of those who helped them because of their desire to maintain the quality of life for their families.
I can count on my fingers the number of hon. Members who have carried a child to full term or who have had to face a decision on whether to have a foetus aborted. I know that it is hard for hon. Members to understand——

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is making a speech, not an intervention. I shall do my best to call her later in the debate.

Mr. Cormack: I gave way because I know that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) has strong feelings. She was on the Committee that I chaired. However, she was not here when I began my speech——

Ms. Gordon: I was.

Mr. Cormack: I was trying to be kind to the hon. Lady by suggesting that she might not have heard my earlier points. I said that there were certain social categories where abortion might be right. However, it must never be lightly entered into and the law must not make it easy for that to happen. Currently, the law makes it too easy.
On the question of how and at what point, I refer hon. Members to the model foetus that we were all sent. It showed a well formed, recognisable human body. When I intervened in my hon. Friend the Minister's speech, the substance of my question to her might not have been immediately clear. I asked how many women miscarried after 20 weeks. She said, quite honestly, that she did not know. My point, which I hoped hon. Members had understood, was that most women who carried a child up to 20 weeks went on to deliver that child. Most 20-week foetuses develop into healthy babies. That point was alluded to, very fairly, by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, and it needs emphasising.
It is often said that we live in a throwaway society, and we do. We are always throwing things away. We do not pay sufficient regard to our environment. When we are chided and upbraided by members of the Green party, many of us deserve it, and I do not exempt myself. However, we must not allow that throwaway mentality to extend to the most important areas of life and lead to the throwing away of life itself.

Sir David Steel: I do not deny that there is something in what the hon. Gentleman says, because the subject of abortion is now more open to discussion and, perhaps, is being treated too trivially. I hope that he will accept that there is a reverse side to the coin. It was well put to me by a friend who was a medical student at Edinburgh when I was a student there. He is now in general practice. He said that one of the effects of the 1967 legislation has been that people will come to his surgery and discuss abortion with him, whereas pre-1967 they would not have done so and he would have lost control of what was happening, and the patient might have ended up with a back-street abortion or going into a private clinic. That is the other side of the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Cormack: I entirely accept that. The right hon. Gentleman has made a fair point, and I acknowledge it. All the right is not on one side and all the wrong on the other. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a devout and convinced Christian—so, I hope, am I. Because we are both Christians we both believe in sin and we are both sinners. Neither of us can be right all the time. I would never suggest that one must believe in no abortion if one is to be a Christian. That is nonsense. I must not refer to yesterday's debate or I shall be called to order. However, yesterday there was a tendency to polarise. In The Times yesterday there was an article by the Archbishop of York who, whatever else he might be, cannot be called anything other than a totally convinced, committed and devout Christian. He is a far better man than I am.
My beliefs make me feel that there is a less deep regard for the sanctity of human life than I would wish. I know that many people in the House and outside do not share the Christian beliefs held by the right hon. Gentleman and myself. However, we still live in a country that has an established Church——

Sir David Steel: I do not.

Mr. Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman does not, but there is an established Church in England and we still subscribe to the general Christian ethic. Many people who are not Christians also subscribe to that ethic. At the centre of that ethic must be a regard for the sanctity, the decency, the quality of human life. It is about those things that we are talking today.

Dame Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when we debated the matter in the House 23 years ago, not even the keenest advocate of the new Bill claimed that any more than 100,000 babies, at the outside, were aborted each year? We know that the figure now is well in excess of 180,000 babies a year. Is my hon. Friend aware that those statistics back up his case?

Mr. Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware of that and that is why I have been trying to make the case, imperfectly I realise. Many of the things that most hon. Members would hold dear are held a little more tenuously than they were 23 years ago. I was not in the House then but I came shortly after. My hon. Friend was. One has to face the fact that marriage is no longer the central institution that it was. One has only to do some canvassing, as I did in Mid-Staffordshire recently—not that it did much good—to realise that for two people of different sex to live in the same house in different names is much more common that it was 20 years ago. One has only to consider the statistics for children born out of wedlock,


or the increasingly powerful demands, which I shall not expand on at the moment because it would be out of order, from some sections of the community for women to be allowed to have children without any thought of marriage, to realise that there have been many changes.
No one could have been married for 23 years as I have—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Too long."] I hope that it is not too long; I hope that I can carry on—without realising that monogamy is not always the easiest state to sustain. The old words of the old prayer book about natural instincts being directed aright show that that has always been recognised.
We are talking about life and the quality of life and we in the House have a great duty, whatever our personal beliefs, to recognise that there is nothing more sacred than life.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cormack: No, I shall not give way any more. You are nodding, Miss Boothroyd, and in fairness to others, I should bring my remarks to a close. My hon. Friend may then have a chance to address the Committee.
We in the House have a great duty to sustain the concept of the sanctity of life. Whether or not we believe in the word "sanctity" is irrelevant. There is nothing more precious than a life. When two people come together and cohabit and create a third person they take on a great responsibility. The act of coming together should not be lightly entered into. The consequences of conception should not lightly be consigned to the flames, or anywhere else for that matter. Children should not be aborted, and that means killed, unless there is a paramount reason—the life of the mother, the circumstances of the conception or some overriding personal problem which can be assessed.
This evening we should tighten up the law and reduce the time limit—I shall vote for the 18-week limit—to make abortion more difficult, but not impossible. The one thing that I could never agree to is abortion on demand. That demeans everyone, most of all the person who demands. It is with that sort of thought in mind that we should conduct our debate. I hope that at the end of our proceedings, whether it is in the small hours or not, we shall have improved the law so that those with legitimate needs will have nothing to fear and those whose attitude to life is rather a casual one will have to think more seriously about the consequences of their actions.

Mr. Doran: My main purpose in rising is to address the House on the uniqueness of the Scottish position, which has been ignored in all the amendments before the House. That was confirmed by the Minister's response to my intervention.
I oppose new clause 4, because I am in favour of the status quo. If the legislation were to be changed, I would want it liberalised and the Scottish position imported into the English legislation. For that reason, I shall be supporting new clause 3.
The Scottish position tends to be ignored and I am conscious that today's debate has concentrated on specific time limits. As a Scottish lawyer, that is an aspect of the English legal system which I have always found it difficult

to understand. The English adherence to precedent and strict rules makes legislation complicated and forces one into the sort of debate that we have heard today.
The Scottish legal system is based on principle. The 1967 Act applies in Scotland, but the basic principle in the application of the Act is the medical decision on the viability of the foetus. When the 1967 Act came into force in Scotland, the limit of 28 weeks was accepted in exactly the same way as it was accepted in England and Wales, but it was accepted because that was the best medical view on the viability of the foetus. As medical technology has improved, so the limit has been lowered. Therefore, the effective limit in Scotland now is 24 weeks, but the limit progresses with medical technology and the ability of the medical profession to sustain the life of a viable foetus. It is on that basis that I present our principle to the House. It is much more flexible, it advances with the times and it would save us endless and interminable debates on the subject of abortion.
To illustrate how flexible the Scottish system is, it is important to consider what was happening in Scotland before the introduction of the 1967 Act. Throughout the rest of the United Kingdom abortion was illegal, but in Aberdeen, the city that I am proud to represent, National Health Service abortions were introduced by the then consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology at Aberdeen royal infirmary, Dugald Baird, who had learned his medicine in the slums of the Gorbals in Glasgow. He had seen working-class women who had produced children year after year, and many of them were worn out in their mid-30s.
With the legal authorities, Dugald Baird introduced the concept of an abortion where the pregnancy posed a risk to the health of the mother. With the procurator fiscal in Aberdeen, he devised a scheme whereby every case in which he as consultant considered that abortion was appropriate because of the risk to the health of the mother, was reported to the procurator fiscal and, if he was satisfied that an abortion was appropriate, it was carried out. The procedure was streamlined so that there were no delays, and many hundreds of abortions were carried out in Aberdeen before the introduction of the 1967 Act. That was possible because of the flexibility of the Scottish system, which declared abortion to be a crime but provided exceptions where, for example, there was a real risk to the mother's health.
The Government amendments threaten that flexibility. No consideration has been given to the uniqueness of the Scottish situation. There is no Scottish Office Minister on the Government Front Bench now, nor has there been for any of the debate—and I do not expect to see one there. There has been inadequate consultation in respect of the Scottish position. When the Minister responded to my earlier intervention during her own speech, she said that the situation in Scotland was at a loose end and that it had to be "tidied up." I hope that she views it as something more than that, and that we can return to that aspect on Report.

Sir David Steel: The hon. Member may be interested to learn that I discussed the matter with Sir Dugald Baird at the time of the Abortion Act 1967. He was much in favour of including Scotland in that statute, because during the time that he was carrying out the practice to which the hon. Gentleman referred, a particular Law Officer in Scotland wrote to him, warning in effect, "Watch it." Sir


Dugald replied, "The next time that I have a case, will you come and tell me whether or not I can carry out an abortion?" He did not regard the law in quite the ideal light that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Doran: Few doctors regard the law in the same ideal light that it is regarded by Scottish lawyers, but I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. Although I never met Dugald Baird, I know from his colleagues that his views were not quite those that I would like to present. He was not totally in favour of the 1967 Act, although he was in favour of establishing a statutory position. I am sure that he would be in favour of the operation of such a law today. Sir Dugald's colleagues recently established a trust fund in memory of the work that he did. The Minister for Health indicates surprise. Perhaps I may write asking her to make a donation to that trust, if she supports its objectives.
Although Scottish law appears to be much more liberal than that of England and Wales, as the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) mentioned, the number of late abortions performed in Scotland is very small. In 1987, there were only two abortions involving pregnancies later than 24 weeks, and only one in 1988. In 1984, the United Nations undertook a survey of abortion rates in every European country where abortion was legal. The rate in Scotland was only eight per thousand, compared with 13 per thousand in England. That bears out the point also made by the right hon. Gentleman that National Health Service family planning services are well developed in Scotland.
Aberdeen's extensive experience of providing abortions on the National Health Service provides many other examples of the way in which abortion law operates north of the border. My local hospital, Aberdeen royal infirmary, has a well organised and streamlined system that aims at avoiding late abortions. No one favours abortion. Every abortion that is performed is a tragedy, but the Aberdeen system ensures that cases that fulfil the legal criteria set by the 1967 Act are dealt with, according to the woman's wishes, at the earliest possible opportunity.
When a woman visits her general practitioner for the purpose of arranging an abortion, he is instructed not to write a letter or postcard to the appropriate consultant seeking an appointment for her but to pick up the telephone and contact a named individual. An appointment is made for the woman there and then. Bureaucratic delays are avoided and the case can be dealt with at the earliest opportunity. I am not frightened by the prospect of an 18-week limit for my own constituents in Aberdeen, although I consider it undesirable for all the other reasons that have been advanced.
In Aberdeen, the latest date effectively for an abortion to be considered is 20 weeks, because the system is streamlined and all qualifying cases are picked up at the earliest stages. Virtually all Aberdeen GPs are tuned in to the system, having worked with it for many years. Even those opposed to abortion pass cases to their partners in the same practice.
There are exceptions to the rule, but the majority of abortions are dealt with within 18 or 20 weeks. That is an excellent example of the way that the National Health Service can restrict the number of late abortions without right hon. and hon. Members having to tug at their heart strings and being the recipients of obscene items—at least, I consider them obscene—through the mail, to persuade them to take a particular view.
Even those who support the 18-week limit accept that abortions should be provided on the National Health Service. That may be to distort some of their views, but I am entitled to place that interpretation on their support for the 18-week amendment. They should also be looking for ways of removing the trauma and stress that is suffered by all women who have to endure an abortion, for whatever reason.
Ways should also be found of taking the issue away from this House and interminable debate. I asked the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) what she meant by her statement of a few months ago that she and her supporters "would go away for a while". I do not believe for a minute that the issue will die once a decision has been made by this House. I certainly do not accept that the hon. Lady can guarantee that all those who share her view will stay in line.
We need to establish a principle that is related to the best medical practices. We should not have to debate the matter year in, year out, but should place our trust in medical practitioners and give them a legal framework within which they can operate and which the public can understand. That would bring an end to the debate, except among those who are totally opposed to the concept of abortion. We could then enter into a much more honest debate on the arguments for and against abortion, rather than have to tinker with time limits and risk the dishonesty that they might engender. For all those reasons, l support new clause 3 and shall vote against new clause 4.

Sir Bernard Braine: We can at least all agree that it is high time to legislate on this important issue. Right hon. and hon. Members who have been in this House for many years will recall repeated attempts by private Members to seek, in some cases, quite modest reforms of abortion law, who succeeded in securing substantial majorities in favour of such measures on the Floor of the House, yet were frustrated by a comparatively small minority who knew how to use our rules and regulations to prevent the House from reaching a final decision.
Whether or not one agrees with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe)—and I do—hers was a remarkable speech, showing a great command of the subject. I listened to her with profit, and I hope that other right hon. Members, whether or not they agree with my hon. Friend, will acknowledge that hers was a remarkable performance.
Clearly, it seemed to the pro-life movement that the only way to resolve the matter once and for all was to persuade the Government of the day—in this case a Conservative Government—that embryo experimentation and abortion law reform should be incorporated in a Government Bill. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) will be the first to recall that the Abortion Act 1967 would not be on the statute book had the Government of the day refused time for it. I do not complain about that. I complain about subsequent Governments who did not take a similar course, although there was an overwhelming majority in the House and in the country in favour of abortion law reform. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, therefore, in congratulating the Government on facilitating this debate.
7 pm
The House has voted repeatedly to stop the scandal of late abortions and abortion on dmand, but we have been prevented from coming to a decision not by argument or reason or by a straight defeat in the Division Lobby, but by blatant filibustering, which is an open admission of defeat by the pro-abortionists. This debate, however, has been very different, precisely because those who used to use those practices know perfectly well that this is a Government Bill, that there is a time limit and that we are being given full facilities to express our views. I have listened with respect to the views advanced by those who fundamentally disagree with me. This has been a good debate for that reason, and we should thank the Government for making it possible.
We have an opportunity now to decide on a reasonable upper limit for abortions. We should take decisions tonight that will be valid for years to come. We should take decisions that bear a relationship to the present situation but, having regard to the advances in medical science, to the situation that is likely to develop in the next decade. That is why I ask hon. Members to consider very carefully which way they will vote tonight. I declare straight away that I am in favour of an upper limit of 18 weeks.
We must also recognise that we compare somewhat unfavourably in that regard, even if the Bill is enacted with the provisions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said that he is in favour of—namely, 24 weeks—with a good many countries in Europe. We are still way behind them and the details are available for hon. Members. Thus, the position in Germany and in France, to consider two of our nearest neighbours, is quite different from the position here, and it will be different again if the Bill is enacted with the recommendations made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
Let us consider the position in this country with regard to late abortions. In 1988, the last year for which I have figures, 183,798 abortions were performed under the Abortion Act 1967. The overwhelming majority were performed for social or non-medical reasons. Handicap was given as a ground for abortion in 3,817 cases, and only 486 abortions were performed because the mother's life was at risk.
Down the ages, it has been acknowledged—it is not challenged now—that abortion is the only surgical operation involving two lives where one must die. It has been accepted down the ages by Christian societies that, where the mother's life is in danger, it is paramount. There is no argument about that.
In 1988, only five abortions were performed to prevent grave permanent damage to the mother. Of late abortions—for the purposes of this debate, I will take those to be at 19 to 20 weeks—3,406 were performed. The total of abortions at 21 to 22 weeks was 1,983; at 23 to 24 weeks, it was 1,107; and at 25 weeks and over, there were only 23. Under the provisions of the new clause tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, the number of lives that would be saved on 1988 figures, if the House voted for an 18-week limit, would be 5,977. If the upper limit was set at 20 weeks, that figure would be reduced to 2,914; at 22 weeks, it would be reduced to 2,027, and at 24 weeks to nil.
I was deeply moved by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). This debate is about life and death. Will we be

voting to save the maximum number of lives? We must consider the figures. The pro-life movement readily concedes that there are certain tragic circumstances in which an abortion is justified. We are not absolutists on the subject. However, for God's sake let us consider the figures. When hon. Members vote, they should weigh the figures very carefully.
My right hon. and learned Friend's new clause is different from the amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in his Bill, in that an upper limit would apply at the end of the week that we decide upon. The new clause refers to a pregnancy which
has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week".
The Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill set the limit at the beginning of the 18th week. I would like clarification from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health as to whether the words, "has not exceeded" means the end of the week in question. Perhaps that can be clarified later.
We have clear choices before us. How many lives do we want to save? That is what the debate is about. How many unborn children do we condemn to death, and how many do we save? It is clear that 24 weeks is no decision at all. That is a fudge, because it would save hardly a single life. In a written answer to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), my hon. Friend the Minister for Health stated that the 22nd week is considered by doctors to be the earliest time that there is the possibility of a foetus being born alive. Wait a minute. We must remember that the Abortion Act 1967 does not have an upper limit. It refers to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which makes it the crime of child destruction to destroy a child capable of being born alive. The prima facie case of capability of being born alive at that time was 28 weeks.
We should note that the 1929 Act does not require a child to be born alive and to survive, which no one can determine in advance, but only to be born alive. I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone told us that Mr. Justice Brooke defined "capable of being born alive" as surviving for only a few minutes. Twenty-eight weeks was the figure agreed in 1929, but medical science has moved fast since then, and that limit is now totally out of date.
Does the Committee realise that, at this precise moment, an abortion carried out at 24 weeks is illegal and contrary to the 1929 Act if it turns out that the child could be born alive at 22 weeks? In short, a 24-week limit would put the clock back and legalise what at present is plainly illegal. Does the Committee realise that that would be the precise effect if we voted for a 24-week limit tonight?
Last December, the Daily Mail featured a delighted mother holding her baby and girl, who had been born at 22 weeks. She weighed just 20 oz. She was not only born alive, but she survived. How against that can anyone defend 24 weeks and think that he is voting for reasonable upper limit? Parliament will be enacting nonsense. A vote for 24 weeks tonight is a vote for a nonsense. When the country realises that, it will not easily forgive us. Medical science will continue to advance, and more and more babies born prematurely will survive. Surely we should legislate for the future and not for the past.
New Clause 1 does not apply a 24-week upper limit as it seems to do. I do not know whether my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), who tabled the new clause,


are aware of that. The new clause seems to allow abortion up to birth under the exceptions stated in paragraphs (2A) (a) and (2A) (b) of the new subsections. Those exceptions could be interpreted widely and the doctors performing such exceptional abortions could stand wholly unchallenged. They would not even be subject to the 1929 Act. I therefore urge hon. Members to oppose new clause 1.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State aware of the effect of new clause 1? I am not seeking to draw my right hon. and learned Friend to his feet, and I do not expect a snap answer. The subject is too serious for that. However, I ask him to reflect on what I am saying and on whether I am right or wrong. God knows, there are moments when one prefers to be wrong. This is the moment of truth. As I said in respect of embryo research yesterday—although the vote did not reflect my advice—the buck stops here in Parliament. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider arranging for a statement to be made before we vote.
It is now appropriate to describe the unborn child in the later stages of pregnancy. There have been several references to a package that hon. Members have received. I have not received one, and I am not especially in favour of such dramatic gestures. However, this is an adult House and hon. Members would not be here if they were not trusted by many of their fellow citizens. It is right to describe what we are discussing. Far from being an inanimate object and a mere clump of cells, the unborn child is sensitive to sound and touch. At 18 weeks, it is complete. All its organs are in place and what it needs between 18 weeks and birth is the correct environment in which to live and to grow.
What is the difference between an 18-week baby and a 28-week baby? It is only size and weight. The unborn child will move spontaneously, it will react to bright light shining on the uterus, and it can recognise and react to its mother's voice. In January 1980, the British Medical Journal published an article entitled, "What the Fetus Feels". In describing the reactions of a nine-week unborn child, the article said:
the baby is well enough formed for him to bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand. In response to a touch on the sole of his foot he will curl his toes or bend his hips and knees to move away from the touching object. At 12 weeks he can close his fingers and thumb and he will open his mouth in response to pressure applied at the base of the thumb. At 11 weeks after conception the fetus starts to swallow the surrounding amniotic fluid and to pass it back into his urine. He can also produce complex facial expressions and even smile.
All these movements and reactions require a high degree of sense and organisation of the various bodily functions. That is the little creature about whom we are talking—a human being not yet born, yet with all the hope and expectation of life.
When we come to vote, let us not vote for a figure. Let us remember that we are voting for the preservation of the lives of future citizens. God knows the number of those who have been sacrificed as a result of abortion since the passage of the 1967 Act. There were, of course, abortions before that Act—I am not criticising the right hon. Member for Tweeddale Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), but since its passage, 2·5 million to 3 million children have been lost, and the overwhelming majority, if they had been allowed to be born, would have been perfectly fit and healthy.
Where would they have been today? They would have been in our schools or at universities or at work, serving their country. That should be a matter of prime concern for every man and woman inside and outside the House. When we vote, let us remember that we are not voting about figures, but about unborn children who may one day make a contribution to our national life.
7.15 pm
I want to put another crucial question to hon. Members. Can the foetus feel pain? I am sure that we are all conscious of the need to safeguard the welfare of animals. How many of us are members of one of the animal welfare societies, go to dog shows in our constituencies and are revolted by cruelty to animals? Let us ask ourselves a question. Tonight, we shall decide whether a foetus should be allowed to live or die after the 18th, 20th or 22nd week, or later. Does this little creature feel pain?
The distinguished Australian, Professor Peter McCullagh who, I am glad to say, is one of the advisers to my all-party pro-life committee, state in his 1987 book entitled "The Foetus as Transplant Donor" that the brain cells essential for consciousness of pain in the adult are present in the 10-week-old unborn child. The sensory nerve fibres transmitting pain are present even before those capable of inhibiting perception of pain. Some hon. Members have had the privilege of hearing Professor McCullagh speak to us elsewhere in this building.
A study that appeared in 1987 in Nature, a well recognised and respected journal, stated that the unborn child's sensory neurones appeared to be more sensitive than those of an adult or a new-born baby. There can be little doubt that abortion is intensely painful for the child as well as for the mother. It is a gruesome business, but I doubt whether many people outside the House—or many in the House—know exactly what is involved.
I shall describe one of the most vivid accounts I have read of a dilatation and evacuation abortion performed at 22 weeks in a London hospial. The House should know exactly what happens before we vote tonight. I quote from the book "Abortion: The Whole Story" by the well-known journalist Mary Kenny. This is her account of what she saw:
First came an arm, perfectly formed, a tiny baby's hand, fingers curled. A limb was extracted. Then two limbs lay in the bowl … The intestines, brain tissue, liver, lungs came away. Last of all—the most difficult part—was the cranium. The skin was torn, and there was not much more than a skull".
Who passed that account to me? It was passed to me by the organisation called Doctors Who Respect Human Life.
Many things have been said about the medical profession in the course of the debate. There has been the odd tribute here and there and people have said that the vast majority of doctors are honourable people who care for their patients, and so on. Thank God many doctors, men and women, take the view that such abortions are an obscenity and a crime that should be stopped. The quotation does not come merely from a journalist or someone who wants to tell an alarmist story.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has the right hon. Gentleman read accounts of back-street illegal abortions or what happens when women attempt to abort
themselves, with equally gruesome results, often resulting in the death of the women?

Sir Bernard Braine: Yes, I have. It has been claimed strongly since the passage of the 1967 Act that the legalisation of abortion rendered back-street abortions unnecessary. As the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale would tell the hon. Lady if he were in his place—I hope she will not shake her head in dissent before hearing my answer to her intervention—the rate of back-street abortions was on the decline before that Act came into being.
I am not arguing that there should not be effective control or that we do not have a responsibility, as a civilised society, to see that women who are in dire need and distress are cared for. Under French law, for example, a woman must be in a state of distress before an abortion can be granted. I am concerned about abortion on demand.
It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone is not in her place. If she had been, I would have asked if she could recall the grounds on which the Carlisle baby was aborted. Hon. Members will remember the terrible story that she told. I am not absolutely sure, but I believe that the grounds were largely trivial and that, if there had been effective control——

Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman: It was a skin disease.

Sir Bernard Braine: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that it was a skin disease, which is common enough among adults, some of whom do not even know that they have it.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 84 per cent. of all women in the United Kingdom believe that women should have the right to choose?

Sir Bernard Braine: The right to choose what?

Miss Nicholson: The right to choose their own pregnancies.

Sir Bernard Braine: In most civilised countries, there is a requirement before an abortion is permitted that the woman—who, in such circumstances, will obviously be in a state of great distress—is counselled by a doctor. There is a pause during which she is given the opportunity to consider the situation. There is at least one organisation in Britain which not only gives counselling but which, if necessary, would help a woman in that situation to bear her child.

Miss Nicholson: rose——

Sir Bernard Braine: No, I will not give way. My hon. Friend raised a trivial point—[Interruption.]—because a woman in that situation needs help. I am not saying that she should be denied help or that there are not circumstances in which abortion is not justified. I am not saying that, and have never said it. I am simply endeavouring to bring home to hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West, what is involved in an abortion.

Ms. Short: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that she does not know?

Sir Bernard Braine: We should consider who benefits from late abortions. Who performs them? I am talking not about early but about late abortions. In a survey conducted by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists entitled, "Late Abortions", published in

1984, it was found that over 60 per cent. of very late abortions were performed, believe it or not, by just 11 private practitioners. That is killing for profit. Some would call it legalised murder.
I trust that whoever replies to the debate will say, since I am referring to 1984 figures, whether the Department of Health has investigated those 11 doctors, whether they have ever been found to have transgressed the so-called gentlemen's agreement between the Department and the clinics performing late abortions, and, even more important, whether their activities have been found to be contrary to, or in line with, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.
What happens in other countries, particularly in Europe? In West Germany, abortion is only allowed up to week 13 for social reasons and up to week 22 for reasons of handicap. In France, abortion is available up to the 10th week for a woman in distress, and after that only if the unborn child is handicapped or if there is serious risk to life or health. In Greece, abortion is available up to the 12th week and thereafter in limited conditions. Spanish law allows abortion up to 12 weeks for rape and up to 22 weeks for handicap. In Denmark, abortion is allowed on demand up to 12 weeks and after that on the authorisation of a special committee. The law is similar in Norway. Swedish law provides for abortion up to 18 weeks and after that only if the foetus is below the age of viability.
In terms of an upper limit, we in this country have one of the most permissive laws in Europe. That is a disgrace to our nation, with women travelling from other countries to have their abortions here.
There is a major difference between yesterday's debate and the matter that we are discussing today. On embryo research, many people honestly have doubts about when life begins. I am referring not to those who are certain about their uncertainties but to those who genuinely have doubts. But today we are concerned with the living unborn child who is capable of being born alive. Abortions carried out on such babies at 24 or 22 weeks are already illegal under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which makes it an offence to destroy a child capable of being born alive.
We are dealing today, therefore, not with doubts or uncertainties but with the question whether the life of the unborn child is sacred or not. As I said in yesterday's debate, the buck stops here in the House of Commons. In my view, we have a solemn duty to protect those who cannot speak for themselves and to consider their interests when others manifestly will not.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) concluded her remarks by talking about the role of irresponsible men in relation to the abortion argument. Although there are areas where she and I disagree, on that issue I agree with her. I accept that men are often the cause of women being pressurised into having abortions. That is a reason why, fundamentally, men along with women are involved in this issue.
However, abortion affects every member of the human race potentially, so this is not a question that divides men and women. It is an issue on which we are all entitled to have an opinion and about which we should show responsibility.

Ms. Richardson: rose——

Mr. Alton: Although the hon. Lady refused while she was speaking to give way to me, I happily give way to her.

Ms. Richardson: I said—I may have said it badly—that women often suffered from men who did not consider them and who made them pregnant in an irresponsible way, not necessarily pressurising them into having abortions.

Mr. Alton: I accept that, too. Men will often use their sexuality in a way that demonstrates a greater sense of machismo than it does responsibility towards their partners. At the heart of the debate about contraception and family planning, the subject raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), is the need to recognise that when love and a sense of responsibility is removed from sexual relations, there will always be tragedy. Sometimes that can result in men trying to pressurise women into what people often perceive as the quick fix of an abortion. They believe that that will solve the problem. Rather than solving the problem, it destroys a life and has consequences for the men, women and children involved and for the medical staff.
Actions that we take in life are bound to carry consequences for us as individuals, and as we discuss this issue, we must accept our responsibility as parliamentarians in drafting the law. We must also accept that society's attitudes must change and that the massive taking of life that has occurred in the past 23 years, with the authority of the law, can never be regarded as desirable.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that another form of irresponsibility could occur? Far from pressuring a mother to have an unwanted abortion, a father could be quite happy to let her get on with it and take no responsibility for the child. What would the hon. Gentleman advise the woman to do in those circumstances?

Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has often put forward views on that subject, which I entirely support. Indeed, the Prime Minister has put forward views about the subject with which I agree also. Many hon. Members will agree that the man who is involved in the creation of life should be forced to take far greater responsibility for the child. Like the hon. Lady, I represent an area in an inner city with many single-parent families and many women who have been left by men. Our concern about life—we shall come to different conclusions—does not mean that we should assume that those who take my position do not also care about doing something about alleviating the distressing poverty and misery that many other people face.
I am sure that many Conservative Members share my view. I am not prepared to say that all Conservative Members are wrong and all Opposition Members right. I have never accepted that in any debate, let alone this one.
The hon. Member said that 2,000 or 3,000 women marched last night to protest against changes in the abortion law. I do not think that it comes down to a numbers count, but the hon. Lady will know that probably the biggest lobby in the life of this Parliament occurred when about 10,000 people came here just a few weeks ago to lobby their Members of Parliament sensitively over two days about this matter. For them this issue is a crucial

human rights matter. For them it must be considered seriously by Parliament. On both sides of the argument many people feel deeply.
The hon. Lady also touched on a point that needs to be addressed. She said that if we draw a time limit of 20 weeks, it would really mean 18 weeks, and that 18 weeks would mean 16 weeks. Just a couple of weeks ago at the Royal Liverpool hospital I saw a scan of a baby of nine weeks and four days. I saw the computer printout on the scan of the exact gestational time. I do not accept that it is impossible to tell the point which a pregnancy has reached and, therefore, with some precision, to be able to come to conclusions about whether an abortion should be allowed.
I thank the Secretary of State for giving the House the chance tonight to vote on the amendments. Whatever the result, as a person who believes in democracy, I shall abide by it. In 1988, 296 Members torn from 10 political parties in the House—quite an achievement in itself—gave my Bill a Second Reading, by a majority of 45. It was the biggest post-world war two attendance on a Friday. We then had 30 hours in Committee, but it distressed me when we were not able to come to a conclusion on Report. We know why that was not possible—the Bill was talked out.
Given that, since 1974, every pro-life Bill that has come before the House has had a Second Reading majority, it is not acceptable to conduct our affairs on this crucial matter in that way, wherever we stand on the issue. The difference with this debate, knowing that we shall come to a conclusion tonight, is that there has been rather more tolerance and respect of each others' attitudes and beliefs in this climate than there ever is when people, whichever side of the argument they are on, try to block progress on a Bill by using the procedural tricks and devices that are open to hon. Members.
That is why, with the constitutional lacuna that clearly exists on a hybrid issue—it is neither public nor private legislation, because it was given 26 hours of Government time to make progress back in 1967—it is right that the House of Commons should be given this chance today, admittedly with a complicated series of amendments before it, to come to a conclusion on a matter about which the public and hon. Members feel deeply.

Ms. Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman made a point about not seeking to mislead the House with arguments that do not represent the truth as we best know it. He referred to identification of the date for termination and to the scan. The hon. Gentleman knows that, for fear of prosecution under the criminal law, doctors must protect themselves in some way, particularly given the pro-life zealots. Therefore, they are bound to reduce the time limit below that which is set by Parliament to protect themselves from prosecution. It is misleading to say that it is possible to pinpoint exactly and that a doctor will take that risk.

Mr. Alton: I was telling the House that just two weeks ago in the Royal Liverpool hospital I saw a foetal scan and the printout on the scan that said that the baby's gestational age was nine weeks and four days. That evidence would be perfectly acceptable in a court of law should it come to that, but I do not wish to see large-scale prosecution of anybody. I happen to believe that doctors and nurses will abide by the law as Parliament frames it. That is what we are here to do tonight.
The protagonists in the debate describe themselves as pro-choice or pro-life. I have met few people who would describe themselves as pro-abortion. I agree with the Minister, who said that every abortion—I extend that to whether it is legal or illegal—is a personal tragedy for all involved. Mostly, those who uphold the present abortion laws describe abortion as the lesser of two evils. That is the fundamental point of difference. For those of us who seek to reform the law, abortion will always be the greater of two evils. Once we accept, and I do, that after fertilisation the new person has entered the frame, it is not possible to remain indifferent to the position of the tiniest and most vulnerable member of our species. I shall never accept the argument of choice—that it is my right to choose to take another person's life. I believe that that is a modern heresy.
However sincerely the opposing views are canvassed in the debate, we shall not repeal the 1967 Act, nor do I think it likely that the House will be convinced by those such as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) who seeks to extend the Act to birth. I hope that, when looking at the uncoupling of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and amendments (q) and (r), the House will give deep consideration to that point. The ILPA is a safeguard that is worth retaining, and it would be a profound mistake to uncouple the two pieces of legislation.
The present limit was not drawn in 1967. As we have heard, it is 61 years since the rule of thumb—capable of being born alive—was drawn at 28 weeks' gestation. That rule of thumb was included in the 1967 Act. That is what Parliament is being asked to vote on tonight. Is it any longer a responsible limit to sustain? That is the issue. Twenty-three years ago, let alone 61 years ago, there was no ultrasound scanning of the type that I have described, no electro-cardiograms for a foetus, and no appreciation of the complete sensory development of the unborn child or knowledge that the unborn baby feels pain—a point that was made by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).
Given those quantum leaps in our knowledge, it is absurd to leave our laws in the dark ages. We have revolutionised our knowledge about the unborn child. Yesterday evening, hon. Members solemnly voted on another clause of the Bill that outlawed experimentation on the human embryo beyond two weeks' gestation. In that debate the Secretary of State said:
At various stages, fresh rights are acquired.
He went on to say that two weeks' gestation
is a logical point beyond which it would be unwise to engage in research."—[Official Report, 23 April 1990; Vol. 171, c. 34.]
Does it not strike the House as odd that, as matters stand at present, for the following 26 weeks it will remain legal to procure the abortion of that same embryo, foetus or unborn child, whom we properly say that it would be unwise to use for purposes of research or experimentation?
Not only has our knowledge of the unborn moved on apace, but we have moved hopelessly out of step with the rest of the world. As I said earlier, last year women from over 100 countries, from places as far away as Mongolia and South Africa, chose to come to this country for abortions and one third of late abortions, those after 18 weeks—in fact, 3,248 such abortions—were conducted on women from overseas. That makes the point far better

than any amount of argument. Those statistics make the point that our abortion laws allow things to happen in the United Kingdom that are not allowed elsewhere.
If one looks at the rest of the European Community——

Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman is talking about women coming here from overseas. If he gets his way and the time limit for abortions is reduced to 18 weeks—or to whatever level the hon. Gentleman wants—does he recognise that British women will become somebody else's "foreign" women?

Mr. Alton: No, I do not believe that. The hon. Lady is mistaken. All over the world people are beginning to assess again their attitude towards abortion. People in this country are recognising that abortion is a destructive act; that it destroys a child and that it destroys women psychologically and physically. If the best that we can offer British women or overseas women is abortion, something is fundamentally wrong with our country.
In the rest of the European Community, social abortions are not allowed beyond an average of 12 to 14 weeks' gestation. As we talk about harmonisation of every other aspect of the law under the sun, let us be clear that the average European Community time limit for social abortion is 12 to 14 weeks' gestation. I hope that a modest change will be made tonight to reduce the time limit here to 18 weeks' gestation—I personally shall support that provision—which is a time limit that applies outside the European Community in another European country—in Sweden, hardly a country that has laws that are reactionary or damaging to women's rights.
I believe that we should make these changes because I believe that we need a system in which rights are balanced with responsibilities. Yes, exemptions will be voted upon tonight, and hon. Members will have the chance to vote on the hard cases of rape and incest; of disability and of damage to a woman's physical or mental health. In 1988, on the Second Reading of my Bill, I gave assurances that hon. Members would have the chance to vote on those questions both in Committee and on Report. I was as good as my word. We provided for that. That shows that, although I disagree on some of these issues, especially on the taking of life because of disability, I tried to move in the direction of those who hold diametrically opposed views so that we could try to reach a sensible arrangement about the upper time limits.
I refer to disability. At the outset of the passage of my Bill, a young Anglican woman, Ellen Wilkie, who had muscular dystrophy, wrote to me, giving me a great deal of encouragement. Her mother had been told that the child would have that incurable disease and Ellen wrote to say that no one was capable of saying what a disabled person would be capable of. I met Ellen and worked with her during the passage of my Bill. Sadly, she died last year at the age of 29, but in the course of her short life she had achieved a classics degree, had written poetry, presented radio and television programmes and written a biography entitled, "A Pocketful of Dynamite", which is to be published shortly.
In that book and in the many things that she said during those weeks, she kept pointing out that one cannot confuse words such as "kill" and "cure". She said that it is not our right to take life merely because that life will be disabled. She said that we should not impose quality


controls on life and that eugenics is the refuge of a society that has grown uneasy with disability. Disability is a challenge to each of us. We should seek to meet it with unconditional love, care and respect, not by choosing to take the disabled person's life.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is not the point that the hon. Gentleman is making negated by the fact that that person lived and achieved so much because her mother had a choice and made her own decision? The legislation that is favoured by the hon. Gentleman and those who think like him would prevent a mother from having the right to choose.

Mr. Alton: The unborn child has no choice in these matters. Ellen had no choice in these matters. The part of the equation that troubles me the most is that unborn children have no say; if we do not speak for them here, who will?
Putting the disability issue to one side, because I know that the House is not convinced by it—I hope that it will be so convinced one day—the fact is that 98 per cent. of all abortions have nothing whatever to do with disability. Indeed, 92 per cent. of late abortions have nothing to do with disability. They involve perfectly healthy children.

Ms. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of conceptions are destroyed by nature? Does he not accept that that demonstrates that he has got this matter wrong and out of all proportion? The majority of conceptions are wasted and never come to term to produce a child. The hon. Gentleman should take that into account and balance his argument.

Mr. Alton: What the hon. Lady says is true, but I believe that there is a plan for each of us in our lives. We are unique human beings. We are not expendable raw material; we are all important and irreplaceable. I agree with the hon. Lady's hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who said yesterday that each of us is sculpted in the image of our maker. I believe that that is a truth. It may well be true that some fertilised embryos are not to come to term and that that is not part of the plan of either God or nature—depending on which one believes in—for them, but the problem for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and for me is that we can never know which would or might have come to full term. The difficulty is that, when one decides to take life in an abortion, one knows that that child would have come to term if we had not intervened.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman address another problem that was raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who has tended to deal with the argument in terms of numbers and who has said that, because an awful lot of unborn children, and an awful lot of embryos and an awful lot of conceptions, are wasted by nature, they do not have protection? If one were to take that argument logically, one would have to say that where nature wasted the majority of born individuals, such as in the distressing circumstances of Calcutta or the Third world. those individuals do not have natural rights. Numbers have nothing whatever to do with it; all that has anything to do with this issue is the definition of life.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady will not be surprised that I entirely agree with that view. The issue that is dividing the

House is the point at which one believes that life begins. If one believes in the sacredness and sanctity of human life, it is unlikely that one could sanction the taking of life.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman has a serious problem. If he believes that life begins at conception and that God creates life, he must believe that God has created a system in which most of the lives that are created are destroyed. As I do not think that there could be such a silly God, the hon. Gentleman's argument is flawed.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady may well be putting in for the job, but I would rather trust in God than in the hon. Lady. I hope that she will not take offence at my saying that.
The natural process in which some embryos are lost shows that God works in important ways——

Ms. Short: In mysterious ways.

Mr. Alton: Yes, in mysterious and in important ways. Many of the embryos that are naturally discarded might well have carried a genetic disorder. This is one of the things that deals naturally with that problem, but handicap and disability are also put in our midst as a way of challenging us. Each of us in our own way is handicapped and disabled. We might conceal some of our disabilities better than others, but there is not a single hon. Member who does not have a disability. If there were to be a perfection test on life, many of us would have to watch out. Surely the House can never sanction quality tests and perfection tests on life.
I now refer to the way in which late abortions are procured. Two principal methods are involved. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) referred to the method of using prostaglandins when she described the case of the Carlisle baby. That is a graphic case which illustrates the way in which our law works at present. It involved not an embryo that was discarded but a baby of 21 weeks' gestation with all its organs in place. It was thought that the baby might have a disability, so, under the disability section of the 1967 Act of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, it could be aborted. What was the disability? It was a non-inherited, in no way life-threatening skin disease. At 21 weeks' gestation, the baby was aborted. It was left to struggle for life for three hours before it was placed in a black sack and incinerated. The doctors and nurses on duty could not fight to save the life of the child because it was part of an abortion.
Here we have a dilemma—that doctors cannot fight to save the life of a child at 21 weeks' gestation. The county coroner said in reply to a letter on the matter that it was in the public interest that there should be an inquest. He was overruled by the Law Officers. That was a tragedy, because it is in the public interest that such cases should be examined.

Ms. Primarolo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton: If the hon. Lady will let me make some progress, I shall give way in a little while.
About 300 other babies are probably in an identical position to that of the Carlisle baby every year. In private clinics, the prostglandin method is avoided because it involves inducing labour and poisoning the baby, and it is a long drawn-out process. As we have already heard, the preferred method in private clinics is dilation and evacuation. That method involves inserting a pliers-like


instrument into the uterus and crushing the baby's skull. That baby is then dismembered and removed piece by piece.
No anaesthetic is used on the child, even though, as the right hon. Member for Castle Point said, from seven weeks' gestation a baby can feel pain. In other words, the baby is writhing in agony during those procedures. Nothing short of that is true. The House must address those facts of life and death. That is what happens in late abortions by the prostaglandin and dilation and evacuation methods. That is what we sanction with the full authority of British law.
Another example of the way in which we go about abortion is selective reduction. That is one of the latest pieces of terminology to be coined. The Lancet had a letter recently from a doctor suggesting that it would be better to call it pregnancy enhancement. A few weeks ago, a baby of 27½ weeks' gestation was aborted. It was to be one of twins and the mother was told that it would suffer from a gene disorder that would leave it sterile for life. At 27½ weeks' gestation, the twin was aborted. It was done by injecting the child with potassium chloride—by stabbing it to death through the wall of the womb.
I wrote to the Law Officers about that case. I am glad that the Solicitor-General has said that there is to be an investigation into the incident. The fact that that could happen in this country is indicative of our sad state of affairs. It is also indicative that within two weeks, the other twin came early because of the trauma that it had experienced. That baby's life was put at risk and, ironically, exposed to the danger of handicap caused by premature birth, about which we heard earlier. That is an illustration of the nonsensical way in which the abortion laws are working.

Ms. Primarolo: I wish to make two points. First, returning to the Carlisle case, which is quoted continually as a horror story, the hon. Gentleman may or may not have been in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke. He said that the doctor who undertook the termination was a supporter of SPUC. Presumably he was not a supporter of abortion, so there must have been a good reason for carrying it out. Secondly, we have heard many times this afternoon about the case that the hon. Gentleman has just reported. It is a horror story. The fact that the case is being investigated after an allegation has been made does not mean that the allegation is true. The hon. Gentleman should not present accusations as truth in the Committee, because it is misleading to do so.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have received a letter from one of the medical staff involved that evening.

Mr. Flannery: A member of SPUC.

Mr. Alton: That member of staff is not a member of any organisation. The letter describes the details of the case of the King's college baby. I have the letter here and I have submitted it to the relevant authorities. No one doubts the authenticity of the events that are described. Although the hon. Lady says that such cases are horror stories, the truth is that what we allow in this country is horrific and barbaric. The reason why the House came to the

conclusions that it did in 1967 was that it was told about some of the tragedies caused by back-street abortions. Without minimising what happens in back-street abortions, can anyone say that what we have replaced that with—the massive taking of life in the way that I have described—is an advance or progress?
The King's college baby, the Carlisle baby and the baby that I described in the dilation and evacuation at 18 weeks' gestation were 1 ft in length, pumping 50 pints of blood a day, with every one of their organs in place. They were as much a member of the human race as any person in the Chamber this evening.

Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman a second time. A point arose that I did not want to lose and I did not know whether the hon. Gentleman would answer it. I do not want the doctor in the Carlisle baby case to be introduced into the debate. He did not start the abortion. The hon. Gentleman will confirm that the abortion was started by a consultant who went home leaving a pro-life doctor and two Catholic nurses to pick up the pieces.

Mr. Alton: I was coming to that point next. Although, to the best of my knowledge, the doctor is not a member of any organisation, I have met him and I know that he has pro-life views. That is still not a crime in this country. Life is made difficult for members of the medical profession who are pro-life. I have talked to gynaecologists, doctors and nurses who have told me of their difficulties when they try to obtain promotion in their profession. It is difficult for them unless they are prepared to participate in abortion.
I refer the House to letters that I have received from members of the medical profession who have been placed in a dilemma. One is from midwives about a live birth during an abortion at 22 weeks:
As midwives we are required to register any infant that lives and breathes independently of its mother for one minute as a livebirth, irrespective of its gestation. We received into our Unit one night twins of 22 weeks gestation accompanied by their grieving father…The second one survived for 10 hours or so. However, the obstetrician in charge said, 'What fool had those babies baptised?' From his point of view they were probably abortions, especially if at the other end of the corridor he had been conducting 7-month hysterectomies that day.
Another letter says:
I myself nursed a baby who was judged to be between 20 and 22 weeks gestation who ten years ago made medical history by surviving. Surely we have come further in medical technology and in civilisation since then to say that these children have rights as well?
Another letter from a nurse says:
As an SRN I have nursed many young girls who have undergone 'termination of pregnancy'…Many of these girls I am sure will be scarred for life. Many seem to be almost innocent victims of a corrupt, greedy system. The Abortion Act is grossly misused…Our society seems to think so high-tech these days that they have lost the reality of what happens in an abortion. They are the sordid facts which people should know.
Another letter says:
I am a junior doctor working in the Special Care Baby Unit. In the Unit we often spend all day and night battling to save the life of just one of these babies, and last week while we were successfully allowing a baby to go home, I realised that this same child could have still been killed under the 1967 Act, if unborn. I find it incredible that in the same hospital babies can be saved in one ward and killed in the next by the same profession.


That is the dilemma in which we place medical practitioners.
Recently a case came before the courts in Liverpool, which illustrates how far we have been conditioned by the thinking of the 1967 Act. A young mother eight months into pregnancy was run over on a pedestrian crossing by a drunken driver. The driver was sentenced to three months and given a £1 fine. In the court it was said that the baby did not count, yet it was eight months into gestation. That is where our attitudes and thinking have taken us.
Since 1967, some 3 million babies have been aborted, of which 184,000 were aborted last year. That is some 600 every working day. One in five pregnancies now ends in abortion. The legislators of the day—this evening we have again heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale—said that if we passed the Bill, there would be no more child abuse, every child would be wanted and it would give women new rights. Sadly, despite the sincerity of those who made the claims, many of them ring hollow today.
Tonight's votes will not stop abortions or enshrine the right to life, but they will give the Committee the chance to address an assessment of human viability made 61 years ago. I urge the House not to vote for cosmetic change. As the 24-week clause is drawn, it would not stop a single one of the 184,000 abortions last year. I hope that the House will recognise that a time limit of 18 weeks is far more compatible with what we now know about viability and humanity.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It will be evident to the Committee that many hon. Members wish to speak. Unless speeches are much shorter, many will be disappointed.

8 pm

Mrs. Gorman: Since I have been a Member of the House I have sat through most of our debates on this subject and have listened, as we all do, to the elaborations in great clinical detail about abortions. I have heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) rehearse his emotive arguments so often and others refute all those arguments that I do not intend to spend my time going over them again.
One thing always strikes me about these debates. Although superficially we are talking about medicine, science and when, where and whether we should stop abortion, emotions and deep passions bubble up from underneath. What motivates those who persist in trying to amend a woman's right in these affairs is theology. They make no bones about it. They persistently refer to their Christianity, their Christian values and their Christian views. That is the motive which subsumes what the so-called pro-life group is up to.
Those motives form one of the deepest, most misogynous strands in human society. For centuries, theologians have equated sex with sin and celibacy with grace. They have regarded women as little more than flower pots in which future generations of children, preferably boy children, are reared. Time and again we hear people pay lip-service to a woman's rights in this, yet when it comes down to it they legislate to give priority to the rights of the foetus that she carries. Whatever time

limit they come up with, whether 18 weeks or some other, their motivation is to prevent a woman from controlling her fertility.
Christianity has always speculated in clinical and almost obsessive detail about sex, from Adam and Eve to the gynaecology of the virgin birth, which could be tolerated only by an elaborate mythology which eliminated the sexual act from procreation. The doctrine of original sin cultivates in pathological detail the central facts of life of human sexuality.
It is the advance of science in providing safe, sound contraception and now termination for women, together with the early legislation that decriminalised abortion, which have produced the furious reaction from the opponents of women's sexuality. We see the screaming, spitting harridans of both sexes outside the clinics where women go for termination, trying to prevent them from going in to exercise their legal right.
Many people who have contributed to these debates continue that deeply misogynous tendency which existed in the early Church. They love to deal in sordid detail with the concept of abortion and how it happens. Yesterday they tried to shock us by sending plastic models through the post. The concept of a woman having a right to control her sexuality, let alone enjoy it, is anathema to them.
If I were to take a hand count in the House of people who believe that a woman has a right equal to a man's to enjoy her sexuality, I should probably have all hands up, but if I asked whether a woman had the right to deal with the unforeseen consequences of the overwhelming passion which consumes her, as it does a man, it would be a different story and there would be talk of social abortions—when women conceive without being properly prepared, as it is usually described. We are told by the so-called humanist preachers of the pro-life movement that in those circumstances a woman has, to all intents and purposes, sinned and must bear the consequences. They may not use that old-fashioned biblical language, but that is what they mean.
If the Pied Piper of Mossley Hill had his way, he would lead the House and the country back to the time when women were the victims of their sexuality—perpetually pregnant, physically worn down, old before their time, unable to find time to develop the other talents with which they were born and always subservient to a man and to the demands of the family. The path that the hon. Gentleman would have us go down would lead us back to those dark days when the only contraception allowed to a woman was the right to say no to her sexuality when confronted with a natural situation to which she would be inclined to respond naturally.
The products of those unfortunate conceptions are the result of a man's sexuality as much as a woman's, but the man, of course, bears no responsibility for carrying through that product. Men laugh about it. They chuckle and sneer and talking about putting a woman in the club or whatever other expression they choose to use. They like the idea that a woman has to bear the unwanted progeny of a desirable or undesirable union. The number of men in these debates who repeat remarks which are fundamentally anti-feminist, dictating to a woman what she will do with herself as a result of those circumstances, sticks in my throat.
If hon. Members think that the scenario that I am painting is melodramatic, they have only to witness the situation in Romania, where another form of dogma has


denied women both contraception and abortion. There we see the tragedy of orphanages brimming over with unwanted children, women dying in large numbers because of the equivalent of back-street abortions, and rampant AIDS—the product of a perverted intercourse—from which many of the children in those orphanages are dying. That is the reality which would result from the doctrine embraced by the pro-life group.
The so-called pro-life group are not what they seem. In my view, they are pro-death—the death of women from illegal abortions or unwanted childbirth. They are also pro-death for the deformed and unviable little children who are born only to suffer and die soon after. They are pro-death for human love in families because of the stress caused by the unfortunate and sometimes tragic circumstances forced upon people as a result of the dogma embraced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. The pro-life group would seek to deny a woman, but not a man, the right to her biological nature, her sensuality, her sensitivity and the end result of it. That is what it is all about.
Speaking as a woman, I believe that the great majority of women in this country—and throughout history—would agree that they should have the right, as a man has, to enjoy their sexual nature, and they are grateful for the opportunity that progress and science has given them to control that nature. If the men in this House, and some of the women, are mindful to deprive women of part of their sexual nature, they should think carefully about their motivation. The scholars of the church, such as Albertus Magnus, one of the early fathers of the Catholic Church, declared that women existed simply for the sexual enjoyment of men. That attitude prevails today in judges who tell juries that women who say no do not necessarily mean it. That is the end product of such thinking.
We know that the Catholic Church wants to deny contraception and termination. We see the appalling consequences of that in the south of Ireland, where babies are dumped on beaches to drown, or left in dustbins. We even see the strength of the Catholic Church in Northern Ireland, where British women in part of the British Isles have to come to this country for a termination, so strong is the Church's influence in that part of our country. It is important to remember that things are not what they seem to be when considering this Bill.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: When the hon. Lady talks about Ireland, north and south, she should be reminded that there is one thing at least that unites all the Churches—their stand on this topic. Rightly or wrongly, let us be consistent and accurate rather than, in the hon. Lady's terms attributing blame to one specific Church. They all agree on this issue.

Mrs. Gorman: I am grateful for that intervention, but two wrongs do not make a right.

Ms. Short: What my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has said is true, but in Ireland women want advice on abortion but clinics which seek to give it are illegal. People who merely seek to assist women who want information so as to make a decision can be prosecuted in the courts. The Churches may agree with one another, but not all the people who live in those countries agree with the Churches.

Mrs. Gorman: I am grateful for that intervention.
Since the enactment of the Abortion Act 1967, which granted a woman, with the advice of her medical practitioner, the right to end a pregnancy for whatever reason she deemed essential to her happiness, that of her family or the interest of the child that she is carrying, we have been bombarded by attempts to remove that right. In so doing, the House is declaring that an individual woman should not be allowed to make that most fundamental decision for herself. Often men are trying to deprive her of the right to make that decision—time and again, we have to remind ourselves of the predominance of male opinion in this Chamber—on a matter that no man ever has to face.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady has said a great deal about women's rights and sexuality, but the specific issue under discussion is a woman's right over the life of her unborn child. The hon. Lady's speech is not along those lines, but where does she believe that that right begins and ends? At what point does she give the right to the child?

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Lady questions me in clinical detail. I have already said that I do not intend to spend time on such detail, but I would not limit the right of a woman—I would leave it to the woman, her medical adviser and her family to make the decision. It should not be a political decision. I would far rather trust the woman and her medical adviser than any Members of this House who think that they should have the right to make that decision for her.

Ms. Harriet Harman: The hon. Lady may have noticed the snorts and derision which followed her statement that there should be no limit to the right of the woman and that the decision should be left to the woman and the medical adviser. Is the hon. Lady aware that in the Netherlands, which has much less restrictive time limits than our own and where the decision is more or less left to the woman and her medical adviser, the abortion rate is far lower than here? There are also fewer late abortions because there are good early referral systems and the family planning service has been sorted out.

Mrs. Gorman: I am gratified to know that there are countries—democracies—which have adopted a more civilised and reasonable attitude than ours.
The pro-life lobby has a perfect right to try to persuade people to its point of view, but it does not have the right to come to this Chamber time and again to try to deprive women of what has become part of their rights in this country. Persuasion is one thing, but inflicting one's views on others in such circumstances is reprehensible. I hope that those views will be rejected.
I hope that the majority of my colleagues, perforce mainly male, who do not have to bear the responsibility of an unwanted birth and pregnancy and who do not have to make such decisions, will not have the temerity, arrogance, inhumanity and insensitivity to make those decisions for women. As sure as eggs are eggs, women will continue to make such decisions for themselves—if not here, then somewhere else.
The grand illusion of the House is that one can legislate to force people into different patterns of behaviour. One can indeed suppress and repress, but that should not be our business. This is supposedly a liberal society and we


should accord to the women of that society the maturity and ability to make decisions about such matters for themselves. I hope that the House will leave the legislation as it stands.

Mrs. Mahon: I entirely agree with the description of the House given by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) when she said that it had a strongly misogynist streak running through it. It is overwhelmingly male, and it is important to remember that fact when discussing abortion. The fact that we are debating the subject of abortion at all today is a serious abuse of parliamentary procedure. Those who tabled the amendments have ignored the majority view, which supports the 1967 Act and believes it should stay as it is, and have caved in to religious and extremist organisations such as the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and LIFE. If they were honest, they would admit that they are against all abortions.
The anti-abortionists are dishonest. They pretend to support a lowering of the time limit and to be satisfied with that when we know that they will not be satisfied. The hon. Member for Billericay was absolutely right—they represent a firmly fixed idea which involves controlling women's fertility, keeping them in their places and forcing them to have unwanted pregnancies. Conservative Members who support SPUC but also favour cuts which take away services for women, as they have recently done, are behaving in a highly hypocritical manner and clearly have double standards.

Mr. Flannery: If we had a democratic set-up, I could not imagine this debate taking place in this way. If there were a large number of women in the House, the problem would not arise in this form. I also find it alarming and vulgarly opportunist for people who are totally against abortion but will not admit it to pronounce, by their own definition, that they are willing to commit murder at 18 or 22 weeks. If that is not opportunism, I do not know what is. Those who think like that should go to confession.

Mrs. Mahon: I agree with my hon. Friend.
A report in today's press mentions reductions in family planning services. In some areas, such services have been cut by 50 per cent. We are debating restricting abortions still further when such a statistic exists and such cuts are taking place across the country. It is a disgrace to be suggesting today that abortion should be restricted still further.
Conservative Members who have spoken against all forms of abortion are the enemies of women. The same people who stand up today and talk about the sanctity of life will go through the Lobby to vote for hanging and for defence estimates involving large amounts of money to procure the weapons of mass destruction. Apparently the sanctity of life is precious when it relates to a group of undifferentiated cells, but not when it comes to frying men, women and children with nuclear weapons. I find that totally unbelievable.

Ms. Short: Moreover, 25 per cent. of the world's population go to bed hungry every night. Many are children who die because they do not get enough food. Yet Conservative Members have consistently voted for cuts in overseas aid and for changes in the international economy

which have increased the number of children dying in a world which produces twice as much food as its population consumes.

Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend makes a telling and moving point, which is true.

Miss Widdecombe: I have made it clear throughout that my guiding principle is that of balancing a life against a life. Where there is no other life to be balanced, as in an ordinary social abortion, I want to retain the life of the unborn child. Where two lives are at issue, as in cases where the mother will otherwise die, I agree that one cannot insist on one life or the other. Without going into a great philosophical treatise, I support the death penalty because I believe that it saves lives and I support defence expenditure because I believe that the only way not to have brutal war is to be prepared against it.

Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Lady's explanation is staggering. Does she not accept that people have sometimes been hanged by mistake? Let her answer that.
Conservative Members convey the idea that abortion never happened before the 1967 Act. I said before, when I had been a Member for only a few months—I must be careful how I repeat it today because the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children made great play of it—that as a young student nurse before 1967 I had experience of back-street abortionists and what happened to women who used them. To pretend that abortion did not happen and that the 1967 Act somehow made it possible is a lie, and flies in the face of the truth. Many abortions took place before that time—mainly at weekends because women with two or three children needed their partners to look after those children while they went to the back-street abortionists. We therefore knew that we would be busy on Friday, Saturday or Sunday.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is not present. He goes on and on about the Carlisle baby. I wish that he had seen the results of women forced to use the syringe and slippery elm bark method. In some cases, the bark penetrated the uterus and caused all kinds of horrendous complications. I wish that he had seen the consequences of women who took poison and those who were bowed down by childbirth and had no access to decent contraception. If people are concerned about nurses now, they should have seen some of the nurses who had to pick up the pieces then.
Another fact that I find unforgiveable is that we have evidence of what happened in Romania when a mad dictator, an insane man, decided to abolish not only abortion, but contraception. The Minister of Health in Romania estimated—records are kept there, and there is a health service—that in 1987 there were 300,000 live births and 1·2 million abortions, nearly all illegal. The rich could buy abortions, but the poor women, like those everywhere else in the world, could not. In Bucharest alone, 20,000 women were admitted to hospital in 1987 with complications following abortions because birth control was also banned. The average woman of 40 had between five and nine abortions. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) does not even want to listen to what I am saying.

Ms. Short: It is her dream society.

Mrs. Mahon: That is true.
Another shocking statistic from the Minister for Health in Bucharest is that it is estimated that one quarter of fertile women in Bucharest have been damaged by visits to back-street abortionists. I wish to make the point strongly that those women were kept in poverty, harassed continuously and denied contraception and abortion. If even the Securitate's methods could not stop women who had decided that they could not have another child, Conservative Members must be living in cloud cuckoo land to think that interfering with the 1967 Act will stop abortion here, because it will not.
Have those who seek to criminalise women here ever asked themselves why women take the decision? It is not made lightly. It is a decision that women agonise about. They do not want abortions. If we had a better Health Service in this country and, as the hon. Member for Billericay said, if there was less hypocrisy about sex, there might be no need for them. If a woman decides that she cannot go through with a pregnancy, a decision that is never reached lightly, she will have an abortion. What Conservative Members and most male Members do not understand is that the instinct telling a woman not to go through with a pregnancy is, like abortion, as old as life itself and they will not stop that instinct.
I believe firmly that women should have the right to choose. I am pro-choice—I am not particularly pro-abortion. We should be debating how to fund our National Health Service and plan our health care so that late abortions will always be unnecessary, how to organise early referrals, how to make family planning freely available and accessible to all.
I for one would be much more convinced of the genuineness of some of the arguments that we have heard today if those who advanced them spent a fraction of the time that they spend trying to criminalise women on some of the real social ills of society, and if they spent some of their energies on increasing child benefit rather than voting to freeze it. They should spend their time providing nursery places and paying for clinics and for workers to help to abolish the real crime in society—that of neglected, sexually abused children who are not wanted. I hope that the House will not interfere with the 1967 Act and that some of the men with their heavy consciences will start weighting them in favour of women and children.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This debate is about the preciousness and sanctity of life, by which I mean the life of the mother as well as that of the child. I doubt whether I will be accused in this debate of being Roman Catholic. Although many hon. Members may not agree with what I say, I take the traditional Protestant line on this issue. Where I might disagree with the Roman Catholics in the House would be about the priority that I would give to the mother, whose life, I believe, must come first in all circumstances. That has always been the traditional Protestant view.
Nothing could be more important to the House than discussing this preciousness and sanctity of human life. I am well aware that all such debates raise hackles. I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who made a forceful and robust speech that would go down exceedingly well in parts of Northern Ireland. Perhaps when she is supporting some of

her Tory friends in the coming elections she may help them stir up some fervour for their candidate, who will nevertheless lose his deposit. However, I am sure that we will welcome her to Portadown in the near future: she campaigned there in the previous European election against my Unionist colleague and myself. She did not do too well, but that is a story for another day.
We need to dwell on one question for a while tonight: should the life of the babe in the womb, at whatever stage, be protected, safeguarded and preserved? Or should it be destroyed—at times wantonly and ruthlessly? It is not enough for people to say that they do not like descriptions of what happens during an abortion; such descriptions are based on well-established facts. The most telling point that I have heard in this debate was made by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who pioneers this issue with great zeal. She said that if the baby was outside the mother's womb—say, in an incubator—and a member of the general public or of the medical profession came along and deliberately slaughtered it, such a person would be in breach of the law and would be tried for murder. Yet because the child is inside the mother's womb, we are asked to legislate tonight so that it can be slaughtered. All of us, no matter what our views, should think seriously about that.
A mother can make a decision. A woman can speak. She makes a choice about the sexual act that may bring about conception. She makes a further choice of whether to conceive a child, and so on, but the child itself has no choice. We are speaking about a child who feels, who can recognise its mother's voice, who can know pain and who is a member of the human family and has been given the unique gift of human life. We cannot get away from that. We might like to, but we should consider it seriously.
Who will plead the case of the child? That relates to the reason why some people misjudge the passion of those who feel strongly about the life of the child. They feel so because it cannot speak or make its own ideas known. Today, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) spoke of 3,000 women who wanted to put forward their views but were unable to come to Parliament and vote on the issue, but they could lobby their Members of Parliament and put forward their views in that way. Who will lobby for the child? Tonight we should listen to the plea of those who cannot make a plea and hear the voice of those who cannot speak. No matter how we vote at the end of the debate we should all realise that we are on solemn ground.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the only significant piece of medical research, done over a 21-year period in Aberdeen by the Medical Research Council, to have looked at the experience of women who had unwanted pregnancies? It discovered that a considerable proportion of the children born to mothers who did not want the pregnancies subsequently became battered children. Is not the hon. Gentleman concerned about those children, as he protests about the rights of the child?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Of course I am. Having been a minister of religion for 40 years in a very large parish with hundreds of families, I certainly know about all such tragedies. One cannot be a pastor in a large city and not know what human nature is. I certainly feel as much for such children as I do for the unborn child. It has been


forcefully argued that the children who are being aborted are largely those of married women who cannot face the prospect of another member in the family, but I notice different statistics in a document from the Library, dated 19 January 1988, which deals with research into abortion. It says:
74 per cent. of abortions after 18 weeks are on single women, disproving the argument that many are on women who cannot face the prospect of another birth.
We must take that into account. I assure the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) that I am concerned.
The former leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said that many people did not care about back-street abortions. In my early days, all the Churches campaigned vigorously against such abortions. No one who is against legal abortion in the sense of trying to limit the number of abortions and deal with the matter of weeks and so on, could be accused of being in favour of back-street abortions. Such abortions were horrible, a curse on society. It is wrong to say that the Churches and other organisations closed their eyes to them. It may have been so in Scotland, where the right hon. Gentleman comes from, but it was not true in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is putting his view forcefully and honourably. Does he agree that if legal abortion is made more difficult, back-street abortions will flourish? That is the harsh reality that we have to face. Some hon. Members who are in the Chamber will not admit that they are totally against abortion, and they are the merchants who would create back-street abortions and bring them up to the level that we had in the Victorian era. That is what they are after.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not accept that everybody in the Chamber who will vote for a reduction in the number of weeks wants to see a return to back-street abortions. That is a blanket condemnation of decent people.

Mr. Flannery: That is what happened.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Why did it happen? I agree with Opposition Members who said that the men responsible should not have been dealt with in the way that they were. In Victorian society a man could have been a leech or a rascal, but he could move in the highest society and nobody pointed the finger at him. It was the poor woman who had to bear the brunt of his sexual appetite. I utterly condemn that, as did all the Churches. It should not be thought that the Churches closed their eyes to that.

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman has wide experience as a minister in Northern Ireland and must know about many of these cases. He must also know that simply preventing things, making them illegal, is likely to make the situation worse, not better, because people will find some way around the law. That will mean looking for back-street abortionists. The present proposition simply seeks to deal with something that it is impossible to prevent, and seeks to do that in a decent, legal and reasonable fashion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: That depends on how the House votes, and the hon. Gentleman'a vote is a matter for him. I was answering a point made by his former leader and colleague, and if he reads Hansard he will understand that. I resent the picture being painted of some hon. Members closing their eyes to back-street abortions.
8.45 pm
I have experience of people who have had abortions and it has not been the answer to their problems. I know of a young man and woman in a common-law marriage. The woman became pregnant and they came to me. She said that she wanted to have an abortion. I said, "I would not advise it, but you have to make your own decision. I am totally opposed to it. You know my view." She went ahead and had the abortion and the physical impact shattered her completely. Her common-law husband had a complete breakdown and committed suicide, and that young woman has been under constant pastoral and medical care ever since. It was not the answer in her case, and we should never pretend to anybody that abortion is an answer.
I agree with the many hon. Members who have said that the present law on abortion removed from people's minds the seriousness of what they were doing when they were going for abortions. I assure hon. Ladies in the Opposition that I did not vote for cuts in the Health Service. We need better health facilities, and more money needs to be spent in that area. There is a voice that should be loud in our ears and it utters a cry for protection. It says, "Let me live." I should like to take the part of those who say that.
The Bible is the most ancient of all books and I am old fashioned enough to believe that it is the Word of God. That will come as no surprise to any hon. Member. The book of Psalms is part of the Hebrew scriptures and therefore covers Judaism and Christianity. The Psalmist said:
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
That is the most beautiful description of life and the sacredness of human life. That is why I plead with hon. Members not to take upon themselves the destruction of God's handiwork. We should not take it upon ourselves to terminate that God-breathed vitality, nor should we lift our hand against the continuance of that special sanctity.
Clearly, there are circumstances when physical and health problems must be considered. That has always been the traditional view of the Protestant Church. I emphasise the priority of the mother whose life must come first in all circumstances. In ordinary physical circumstances, when a proper and normal birth can take place, it should take place.
Scores of families in my parish would love to have children. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) knows, many families in Northern Ireland cannot adopt children because of the proscriptions and the scarcity of children. I have been to Romania and tried to get some children there to Northern Ireland. Scores of families would love to take unwanted children.

Ms. Gordon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more than half the children born with handicaps have to live out their lives in institutions and that there are no happy homes waiting for them? I wish that there were. It is not always the people who call themselves pro-life who are the first to come forward to help handicapped people and handicapped children.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have some handicapped children in my parish and they are happy because they have love, comfort and dedication. I have often said that the best can be brought of a father and mother who have a handicapped child. However, I should not like anyone to think that those who take my view would close their eyes to other important matters. It is essential that consideration is given to all matters when it is known that a child will be very seriously handicapped. Of course there is some division on that, but I take the same view on incest and rape. I may differ from some of my colleagues on those issues, but I feel strongly about them.
The number of weeks is important. How will we decide where to set the limit? The Father of the House made an important point when he said that the Government new clause suggesting 24 weeks does nothing. Those who are somewhat worked up about the new clause need not be so because it does nothing. It will not reduce the number of children who will be slaughtered in their mothers' wombs. There is a case for setting the limit at 18 or 20 weeks.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said that the only reason why a mother was offered a funeral service for her 20-week child was to soothe her feelings. It is a terrible indictment upon any Christian minister who would soothe a mother with a lie. The law recognises that child as a human being. It should not be simply dismissed as though the Church was prepared to join in some falsehood to cover up what had happened. The solace given to a mother in those circumstances must be genuine. It is not speech that calms a person—it is the pressure of a hand, the silent tear, the communication of deep feelings when one weeps with that person in his or her hardship.
I should not want anyone to think that the majority of ministers, of whatever Church, would carry on some farce over a body that was 20 weeks old just to give some false comfort to the parent. That view should not be put forward as a genuine point in any debate on this important subject.
We need seriously to consider the amendments suggesting 18 weeks and 20 weeks. I should prefer 18 weeks. The Committee will decide. We have been told tonight that some of the pro-life supporters will come back to the House time and again. That is their democratic right. The hon. Member for Billericay said that women would not abide whatever limit we set. Although we must bow to what the House decides, after the Divisions everyone is still entitled to continue to campaign for his point of view. If people can get some other House of Parliament to agree with them, that is their right. That is democracy. Surely I have the support of both sides of the House in that.

Rev. Martin Smyth: As a mere man, I am happy to be called, because I also represent women. People may say that men are making their opinions heard in the House, but they should recognise that many of those who lobby us either for or against any issue, and especially this issue, are women.
We have been lobbied at various levels. One interesting suggestion was that I should not vote tonight unless the Abortion Act 1967 is extended to Northern Ireland. I wonder whether that would be applicable to English and Welsh Members who deal with Northern Ireland issues although they do not live there. Does it, perhaps, reflect the fact that this House should not be making laws for

Northern Ireland unless we are given the same rights of citizenship and representation as the remainder of the country? There are those who would even seek to limit further our representative capacity in this House. Tonight, we are representing part of this nation. We have been lobbied by people from throughout the country, both for and against the issue. I shall seek to make my comments accordingly.
I was amused by the revelation of historical perspective of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). Perhaps she appeared as a libertarian or an Amazon in her presentation tonight, but the harsh reality was her quotation from a father of the early Church. He was a medievalist, and certainly could not have been a father of the Church. I regret the fact that she extended her background into the debate without giving due consideration to the arguments——

Mr. Mallon: I found the remarks of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) disturbing and confusing, especially as she referred to the north of Ireland and to one specific religious denomination. The hon. Gentleman has a vast knowledge of the people of the north of Ireland. Does he agree that neither he nor the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) could in any way be described as misogynistic, medievalist, Jesuitical Catholics?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I said that I regretted the fact that the hon. Member for Billericay transferred some of her background into the debate and completely misrepresented the issues. Perhaps we are misogynists—it depends on how we are viewed. Hon. Members tonight have referred to extremists. I was always taught that there were various extremes, so we must decide where we stand when calling someone else an extremist.

Ms. Short: There is no doubt when one looks at writings from the days of the early fathers of the Church that some of them are horrendous in its hatred of women, and rejection of their sexuality and any rights. That is all pre-reformation and forms part of the origins of the hon. Member's Church, as of the Catholic Church. It is part of the ancestry of the hon. Gentleman's religion and it does inform part of its Christian tradition.

9 pm

Rev. Martin Smyth: We are being asked to have a theological discussion, as the hon. Member for Billericay desired. The harsh reality is that some politicians in the House put forward their own position, and I pray to God that their position, whatever the subject matter may be, may never be immediately extended and attributed to the rest of us.
There are those in the early Church who, for their own reasons, took a particular line, but the line described tonight was certainly not one taken by the early fathers. I have no hesitation in welcoming a tradition that goes right back, particularly to those who turned to the scriptures and sought to order their lives. Calvin was one of the best quoters of the early fathers, and he did not allow himself to be misled.
One issue that has not been considered carefully enough is that, for whatever reason, pregnant women may be in a traumatic state, so that, when a medical adviser suggests that an abortion might be wise, the woman's thoughts immediately turn down that road.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) said that she had had to decide whether to go through with a pregnancy, having been advised that the child might be deformed. In the end, thank God, there was little deformity. In my pastoral experience, I have had similar experiences.
I am not, as some may be, an absolutist on abortion, but I have always found it difficult to counsel the taking of life. Therefore, I have had to consider the issues with those whom I have counselled, and stand by them. I can think of several who have decided to have an abortion and others who have decided to allow their pregnancies to go full term and, thankfully, they have never looked back, although I do not say that life has been easy for them.
I think of one young nurse who returned to Belfast from England for her confinement about a year ago, having been told that her unborn child might be deformed. She was advised to have an abortion, but she chose not to and she now has a delightful little girl, who was named Joy because of the joy that she brought to the family. Thank God again that, despite the prognosis of medical science, the handicap was not as severe as had been suggested.
That is why we must ask questions. Even with the advance of medical science, doctors, like the rest of us, make mistakes. It is not right to say that if, for example, there is a severe handicap, an abortion must automatically be considered. Therefore, I support the lowering of the time limit within which an abortion must be carried out.
It is 23 years since the 1967 Act., and 61 years since the 1929 Act. Despite the fears that some hon. Members have expressed tonight, that the matter will be brought up again next year and the year after, I suspect that it will be another 20 years before we have a debate of this nature in the House again. The way of politics is such that it is unlikely that we shall have another opportunity to come to a decision on such an issue in an open debate with a free vote.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that medical techniques are advancing so rapidly that, long before 20 years is up, we shall regard a termination within 20 weeks as ludicrous? By that time, medical techniques will he so good that a foetus will be viable much earlier than that.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept the hon. Lady's argument. It is the very one that I was about to come to. But no matter how fast medical science advances, I cannot imagine, with my limited knowledge of the House after eight years, that it will move with any speed to deal with the issue.
There have been advances in medical science over the past 20 years, and the House has been presented with opportunity after opportunity in the form of private Members' Bills to take them into account—but abuse of our procedures has made it impossible to do so. That is why I doubt that we shall have another opportunity to debate the matter for 20 years. I take the hon. Lady's point.
It would be wrong to let the limit remain at 24 weeks. We should look ahead and adopt the limit defined by the judge—who interprets the laws that we make—who said that life is viable after 18 weeks. The Committee now has an opportunity to go down that road.

Ms. Primarolo: If a judge pronounced that medical science is capable of developing a fertilised egg through all

the stages of the embryo, separate from man or woman, does the hon. Gentleman think that that would be acceptable?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I was not making any such proposition. The hon. Lady has been long enough in politics to know that one should never answer a hypothetical question. I was speaking of a recent decision and of the prospects for medical science, and asking the Committee to consider carefully before making a decision to leave the limit at 24 weeks. I believe that it should be reduced to 20 weeks, and preferably to 18 weeks.
Part of the difficulty stems from the climate in society. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick. and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) compared the attitude in Scotland with that in England and Wales. There is in Scottish common law a prohibition on killing. I wonder to what degree that has influenced the opinions held in Scotland. It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) that there have been fewer abortions in Scotland than in England and Wales since the 1967 Act. Perhaps that is a consequence of the attitudes that have grown from the 1967 Act rather than because of the Act itself. I refer to the attitude that human life is cheap, with the consequence that decisions are taken to dispose of a baby before thinking through all the consequences.
One is talking not just of the woman's choice—and one must remember that the foetus might be female. At times, the debate has resembled a contest between male and female. The tragedy is that the selective abortion techniques that are now available could be used not only to breed heirs for the Upper House but to reduce the number of women in a society that did not value them as much as our society does today.
Reference has been made to back-street abortions. Were they more horrendous in the way that they disposed of babes in the womb than the methods used by modern medical science?

Ms. Short: Yes, they were. They were much worse.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Well, I recognise the brutality of back-street abortions, but do not modern techniques also involve the battering of a babe—as described tonight by several right hon. and hon. Members? We should not allow ourselves to be conditioned in that way.

Sir Russell Johnston: What about the mother in that context?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept the point about the mother. However, someone talked about sticking pins into a foetus. The methods of abortion may be more refined today, but the attack on the baby is similar. I am puzzled because we do not have any hard evidence one way or the other to substantiate some of the conclusions that have been reached tonight, including the conclusion that there may be a return to back-street abortions in areas where abortion is not available. Even where abortions are available, women still take the lives of their babies or induce others to do so.
As we make laws in this House, one of our fundamental concerns must be to re-establish standards and values. I do not believe that anyone would suggest that, because people do not keep laws, we should not make them. That idea appeared in the arguments tonight. Our laws are guidelines for society.
When we consider older women who are seeking abortions, we must also consider the figures provided by the Library, which were quoted by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Those figures show that a high percentage of abortions occur among single women. I wonder how far the attitude of men and of families affects younger women particularly and encourages them to take the easy way out to avoid the social scandal and stigma which still exist in our society whether we like to admit it or not. I wonder how far that attitude encourages the taking of human life when those children should be nurtured and their families and society enriched.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) even though on this occasion he knows that I fundamentally disagree with him on this important issue. The House will be aware of my close involvement with the Province of Northern Ireland. I believe that the hon. Member for Belfast, South and all other Northern Ireland Members have every right to take part in and vote in this debate even though, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South pointed out, the present legislation in my view mistakenly does not cover the Province.
I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, South and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will not take it amiss if I say that when I find that all the politicians agree in the Province, I am always a little worried. This is one of those occasions when they will clearly all be in the same Lobby.
Our very serious debate has been badly let down by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which committed a gross act of bad taste yesterday when it sent a plastic model of a 20-week foetus to virtually every Member of the House. It is already a matter of record that at least one of our secretaries who had recently had a miscarriage found the prospect of that foetus highly offensive and deeply upsetting when she opened the parcel.
I hope that all those involved in sending the foetuses are thoroughly ashamed of themselves, and I hope that Mr. Godfrey Bradman will find a better use for his money in future. The only small silver lining to the incident is that it has clearly alienated a large number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who were perhaps not entirely committed to voting in this important debate. It has illustrated to many the paucity of the arguments of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and of some of the people who organise it.
9.15 pm
I wish to reiterate to the House my position on this issue. I am neither in favour nor against abortion—I am in favour of women having the chance to decide, in most circumstances, whether they should have an abortion. It is a traumatic decision for the mother and father of the potential child to conclude that there should be an abortion, but that decision is not made easier by meddling and interference by politicians. The politicising of the abortion issue is deeply regrettable. I hope that after today, if there is some sensible voting in the early hours, the issue can be put to bed once and for all.
If we follow the anti-abortion lobby and make it difficult for women to have an abortion in this country, or if we make it illegal for them to have an abortion, which

is what the SPUC supporters want, it will be the worst piece of class legislation that Parliament has ever allowed. My mainly affluent, middle-class electors would still be able to obtain an abortion, whether legal or not, and would not have to go to the back streets. They have the money and the wherewithal to know where to go.
The people most affected are the most vulnerable members of society, such as the young girl who does not realise that she is pregnant until late in the day. Such a young girl may have an IQ which is not so high as it might be. She may have unhelpful parents and an unhelpful doctor, and she may find herself driven to the back streets. I do not need to emphasise, because other hon. Members have done so, the traumas and horrors of back-street abortions. Do we really want to go back to that?
The problem was well illustrated by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) when they rightly pointed out to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that if we make it difficult for people to obtain abortions, abortions will still take place, but there will be increasingly large numbers of back-street abortions causing grave damage, mentally and physically, to the women on whom they are performed.

Mr. Thurnham: There is not only a problem of back-street abortion—there is the problem that the Bill threatens doctors with gaol sentences. Those who are opposed to abortion want to send doctors to prison rather than let them help women. The real problem is the million women in this country who are at risk of an unplanned pregnancy. In any year, one in three of those women becomes pregnant. Half then go through with an unplanned pregnancy and the other half go through the trauma of abortion.
Is it not better to look to the example of countries such as Holland, where there are more liberal laws, a far better awareness and understanding, and a culture which does not encourage unplanned pregnancies?

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Briefly, please.

Mr. Thurnham: That is the way to seek a solution to the problem.

The Chairman: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. MacKay: I realise, Mr. Walker, that you will not want me to take up every point raised by my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, I thank him for his intervention. One of the more regrettable aspects of the debate has been the anti-abortion lobby's attack on many members of the medical profession. We all acknowledge that there must be some bad doctors, as there are bad members of any profession, but the slanderous attacks in this debate on various doctors and the even stronger attacks by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children have been disgraceful and do not add to its case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is right to say that we should prefer to have fewer and earlier abortions. He is also right to say that doctors are concerned about breaking the law, and that seems to be the key to the voting today.
Many of my hon. Friends, and some Opposition Members, want a reduction in the time limit because of the advance of medical science. I share that view, and I am a


sponsor of the Houghton Bill which would put a 24-week limit on abortions, with medical exceptions. I would have moved an amendment—it was not selected—on the Alton measure two years ago to reduce the time limit to 24 weeks, taking into account the advances in medical science.
Many hon. Members ask whether it matters whether the limit is 24 or 22 weeks. In the way in which the amendments have fallen on the Order Paper, we shall be voting on 22 weeks before a decision is taken on 24. It might be helpful, therefore, if I explain why 22 weeks would be unsatisfactory.
Most surgeons allow a four-week or, at the least, a two-week margin on their diagnosis of gestational age so as to avoid inadvertently breaking the law. Therefore, if we vote for 22 weeks tonight, in practice there will be no more abortions after 18 weeks. If we were foolish enough to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and vote for 18 weeks, in practice we should be voting for 14 weeks, as the hon. Gentleman knows—that is what he wants, and he is on record as saying that he would rather there were no abortions at all.
If we vote for 24 weeks, as I encourage hon. Members to do, in practice that will be 20 or at the most 22 weeks, and we shall then have to vote for medical exceptions. Let it be clearly remembered that hon. Members who think that 22 weeks is all right should vote for 24 weeks.
Hon. Members on both sides of the argument deplore late abortions and believe that they should occur only in the most dire circumstances. With better family planning, a better educated population, and doctors who more readily refer pregnant women to abortion clinics for advice, we should have earlier abortions.
From all the talk about late abortions, one would imagine that a large number occur in Britain, but the figures for 1988, the last recorded for a full year, show that 84 per cent. of all abortions were performed at under 13 weeks and 14 per cent. between 13 and 20 weeks, leaving only 1·7 per cent. at over 20 weeks.
No woman wants or welcomes the need to terminate a pregnancy, still less to have a late abortion. Very late abortions are the most traumatic and usually the most needed. Broadly, they involve two categories who are the most vulnerable people in society. The first are those who find that they would have a severely or potentially severely or grossly handicapped child.
I have said before that I have every admiration for parents who feel that they can cope with a grossly disabled child. My wife and I took the decision twice when she was pregnant that we could not do that—that we were not sufficient people to cope with that—and if she and I had known that either of our children would be grossly handicapped or disabled, we would have sought an abortion at the first possible opportunity. I therefore believe that it is the right of parents to decide whether to have an abortion if the child would be grossly disabled. In most circumstances, that decision can only be taken quite late in pregnancy.
The second category of late pregnancies are, by and large, the young girls to whom I referred who, unfortunately, due to a lack of education are not aware that they are pregnant until late in the day. They are often scared and have no idea where to turn. They probably cannot turn to parents or family or to their local doctor. By the time they arrive at a consultant or an abortion clinic, they are very heavily pregnant and therefore need a late abortion.
Reducing the time limit for abortion below 24 weeks would penalise the two most vulnerable groups who require abortion—those who would have severely handicapped children and those, by and large young girls, who are not aware that they are pregnant. I remind the Committee that, in 1988, such late abortions represented no more than 1·7 per cent. of the total.
I take issue with hon. Members who are anti-abortion. They have perhaps been gently and inadvertently misleading in the Committee and in their press comments. They have given the impression or have trailed their coat to the effect that if we settle a 22-week limit they will go away, pack their bags and be quite happy—"We will not trouble you again. You will not have any more nasty mail from the awful SPUC people. All will be well. There will be no more ten-minute Bills and no more private Members' Bills. We will not demand more time from the Government." If we believe that, we will believe anything. It is absolutely clear that the SPUC anti-abortion lobby is against abortion in principle, and I do not begrudge that—it is a deeply held view which I respect but with which I totally disagree—but they should be honest enough to say so. They have referred to the ratchet effect—in other words, 22 weeks will be the first turn of the ratchet, moving downwards towards the aim of complete abolition.
For perfectly genuine reasons, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) cannot be present at the moment. She told us that very story in the Sunday newspapers—"Don't worry. Vote for 22 weeks and we will all go away." Unfortunately, our hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) let the cat out of the bag when she said, "She has no right to say that—no right at all. We shall be back." I suspect that, on this occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton is being slightly more honest with the House.
I now refer to another lady, the national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children—one Phyllis Bowman, who, on teletext today, after the embryo research result last night, was quoted as saying, "The campaign to reverse it starts today." Does anyone honestly believe that if the vote on abortion does not go their way tonight, Mrs. Bowman and her supporters will not be saying exactly the same thing? I think not.
I strongly urge hon Members to vote for 24 weeks with medical exceptions and to look carefully at what some of my colleagues have said about whether the issue will go away. Frankly, I do not believe them.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

The Chairman of Ways and Means: I see seven hon. Members trying to catch my eye. We have roughly 60 minutes of debating time left. I hope that hon. Members will recognise the obvious arithmetic and play fair by their colleagues.

Ms. Primarolo: I shall try to be reasonably brief. To hear many hon. Members speak, one would think that only they possess a conscience and that the thousands of women who take the difficult and traumatic decision to have an abortion do not. That is a travesty of the truth and a massive insult to the women of this country, who are perfectly capable of exercising their consciences over what they do with their bodies.
If we are so concerned about abortions and about reducing the number of abortions, there is another solution that does not interfere with women's rights over


their sexuality; it interferes with men's rights over theirs. That way of reducing abortions is to have men sterilised. However, that is not the proposal that we are considering—perhaps that is because most hon. Members are men. I would not support such a proposal because I do not think that we have any more right to interfere in men's sexuality than we have a right to interfere in women's sexuality.
9.30 pm
It is interesting that it has been alleged, by implication, that women do not have consciences because we have abortions and we therefore have little regard for life. It is suggested that the lowering of the standard of the sanctity of life has been brought about by women exercising our rights to have abortions. It has also been implied that women are baby machines and that we have no rights over our bodies because of our sexuality and our biology. That view has to be refuted in the House. Women must say—hon. Members who are women must say—that we have consciences and that we exercise them daily as women and that women exercise their consciences when making choices about abortion. We do not need the men in the Chamber to borrow our consciences for us and to take that decision.
As a Parliament, we need to say whether we agree with the legal right to abortion. The debate would be a lot clearer and a lot more honest if it was about whether we agreed with that right to legal abortion. The time limit question is not relevant to the debate. The medical decision and the woman's decision are what is relevant. What is relevant is that it is against the law to terminate a pregnancy where the foetus is viable.
There is no upper time limit in Scotland, yet women in Scotland do not have less sense of responsibility or better consciences than the women in England and Wales when they exercise difficult choices about access to abortion. Whether or not a time limit exists is irrelevant.
Much play has been made about late abortions. The hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) pointed out that only a tiny proportion of abortions are late abortions. We need to remind ourselves of some of the circumstances in which very late abortions—post-24 week abortions—occur. I shall give just two brief examples. The first relates to a young woman who went to see her doctor when she was two weeks pregnant. She did not know that her doctor was an anti-abortionist. The doctor was a man and he did not declare his conscience. By the time that young woman finally managed to get through the bureaucracy and to have the abortion that she had sought at two weeks, she was 22 weeks pregnant. That happened through no fault of her own. Hon. Members who claim the sanctity of their consciences are seeking to impose constraints on the life of such young women because of delays that are no fault of their own.
My second example is that of a woman who took part in a television programme on abortion in which I, too, participated. She was a woman in her mid to late thirties. She and her husband desperately wanted a child. She had suffered 10 years of infertility. At 27 weeks into the pregnancy of a much-wanted child, it was discovered, even though all the tests had been done, that the baby was suffering from spina bifida of the upper spine. She was paralysed from the neck down, had only one kidney, a deformed chest cavity and no urinary system. That child

was not capable of sustaining life separately from the mother. The time limit meant that that woman was forced to make a decision quickly about what was best for her child and for her. Without an upper time limit, the condition of that unborn foetus would give grounds for termination. But if we move the time limit it may not.
Not only Christians have a conscience and value life and the quality of life. Those of us who do not quote the Bible and are not Christians do not value life any the less. Many of us value the lives of the women who live now and struggle with inadequate and ever-decreasing family planning centres and related advice, and the fact that for many of us contraception is unsafe and threatens our health.
We need the right to access to abortion within the law as it is currently stated. We do not say that lightly or without using our consciences, but on the basis of what is best for our lives and those of others. it is appalling that hon. Members should insinuate or say directly that women do not live by those principles and do not have those basic understandings. We have heard slurs against doctors and accusations about their practices. The courts have been quoted in favour of deciding what the upper time limit should be and quoted the other way in the case of the woman run over on a zebra crossing when she was seven months pregnant.
Parliament must decide whether it agrees to legal abortion. If we do, who are the best people to decide on those abortions? It is the women and the doctors whom they consult. To terminate a viable foetus is against the law. That will not be changed. I support new clause 3 in my name, which proposes that the law in Scotland be adopted to create the same law in England and Wales so that there will be no upper time limit. Abortion is a medical decision and a woman's choice. We should examine the abortion law and recognise that, of course, abortion is not a legitimate form of contraception. It is a desperate measure for desperate situations. We must make sure that women have speedy, quick, efficient and safe access to legal abortion.
With, perhaps, a few exceptions, hon. Members are not medically qualified. They are not consultants and they are not the best people to make medical decisions. We should recognise that. We should not attempt to play God and impose our consciences on others. We should create an environment where women can excercise their consciences safely and legally.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Has my hon. Friend also considered the difficult legal cases and controversies which may well result if time limits become restrictive, because it is not possible to prove beyond doubt when a pregnancy commences? It cannot be done by scans. Doctors do not always agree with their patients or believe them. Who will decide beyond all doubt when the pregnancy started? That is not necessary now because of the flexibility in the time limits. Has my hon. Friend considered that problem?

Ms. Primarolo: It makes my blood run cold to think that the courts may make that decision with such ill-qualified judges as the one who recently said in a rape trial that women did not know their mind when refusing sexual intercourse and that sometimes no meant yes. Presumably the courts would tell women that the women did not know when pregnancy started.
Women in Bristol feel strongly, as do all women, about the right which Parliament seeks to take from us. A large petition was collected in Bristol where the women have a clear view on this issue. The 1967 Act is working as well as it can within the definitions for controlling legal abortion. Abortions beyond 24 weeks are not conducted without grave reason. It is a travesty of the truth for hon. Members to read out horror stories and describe most horrific events to frighten Members of Parliament into an ill-judged, incorrect decision.
I hope that hon. Members will vote not to amend the 1967 Act, but to leave it as it is. If they want to improve it, they should vote for new clause 3 which removes all time limits and leaves the decision to the women and the doctors.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I shall have another stab at my simple arithmetic. Seven hon. Members wish to speak and there are 49 minutes left, which is seven apiece.

Miss Emma Nicholson: It may seem to the House that we have already discussed every facet of abortion law tonight, but there is a new form of thinking to which we should address ourselves, which is more rigorous thinking about the whole Abortion Act 1967.
Tonight we have been placating our consciences by concentrating our attention, as always, on the upper time limit. That argument is close to the medieval debate on how many angels can dance on the point of a pin. In the same way, there is no real-life answer. On the other hand, if we look carefully at the worries that are troubling people outside the House, we might reach a rational and wholly different solution.
Although this is the tenth debate on this subject in 16 years, I do not think that there will not be another debate in a short time, because we shall not reach a practical solution tonight. I draw the attention of the Committee to new clause 5. Although we shall not vote on it, I feel strongly that hon. Members should consider it carefully to see whether it strikes a more realistic chord.
New clause 5 starts from the premise that we should separate social abortions from other abortions. After all, social abortions and other abortions are sought for two wholly different reasons. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) talked of identical babies whose only difference at 20 weeks was that one was visible and the other invisible to the naked eye. That is not true because the baby invisible to the naked eye may be hideously deformed and if born and brought to life, may face a future of unimaginable suffering. It may be visible to the naked eye through modern machinery and perhaps it can be kept alive, despite its wretched existence, for many years.
Earlier I mentioned the case of a child born with no brain who has now reached the age of nine. In nobody's terms can that child be considered to have a life since the essence of human life is the brain. Abortions for medical reasons represent a different style of need to those abortions on what are broadly termed social grounds.
9.45 pm
The Committee should step away immediately from the fiction that the 1967 Act does not provide abortions on request—of course it does. The woman requests that abortion. Abortion on demand is just a more fearful way

of describing abortion on request. General practitioners in my constituency and elsewhere tell me that it is virtually impossible for a doctor to refuse an abortion under the workings of the 1967 Act. However, the Act places a succession of minor hurdles in the way of the pregnant mother trying to obtain an abortion. I know of a good example of that. I hope that I will not fall into the same trap as many other hon. Members tonight who have taken extreme examples and used them to support a generality. My example is a straight, middle-of-the-road one.
A girl in the village next door to mine became pregnant. She was single and 18 and the boy who had made her pregnant did not marry her, nor did he want to. She started to seek an abortion at five weeks after she had missed her period. The general practitioner in that particular village is not sympathetic to abortions. She had no car and the rural bus service is appalling. In addition, the two general practices in the nearby market town are full. By the time she obtained two signatures, her pregnancy was visible to everyone in the village. Her credibility was wrecked, and more to the point for the purposes of this debate, it was 18 weeks before she got that abortion. That is the price paid by that woman for us salving our consciences here by pretending that we do not have abortion on demand. We do, but we draw it out in a cruel and lengthy way.
It is my view—I recognise the problem that it will cause to members of the Catholic Church whose views I recognise and honour, though I do not share—that up to 12 weeks the mother's wish, in conjunction with her general practitioner's decision, should be sufficient to allow her an abortion. Why should she have her GP's agreement? Solely so that society can satisfy itself that she is not using the medical profession as a source of late contraception. We should remember that this should not be a debate on the funding of the National Health Service since more than half of abortions are not carried out by the NHS. I am talking about the use of medical resources.
It is worth reminding hon. Members that the population of reproductive age in the United Kingdom are rapidly diminishing; they have become a significant minority. I believe that their quality of life and rights must be protected. Similarly, the mother's family, her life and her future must come first.
It is interesting to compare my proposal with the practice in the remainder of Europe, Scandinavia and north America. In this regard my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) was in some confusion. He told us quite correctly that in terms of late abortions after 12 or 13 weeks we scored badly with the rest of Europe, Scandinavia and north America. He omitted to tell the House, however, that since 1975 in France abortions up to 12 weeks have been available on demand and the same is true in Sweden.
Incidentally, once abortion was made available on demand in Sweden, up to 18 weeks, 95 per cent. of abortions since then have been carried out pre-13 weeks. If one eases up the bureaucracy at the beginning women have abortions earlier and that must be to the benefit of the NHS, the private health service and the mother. That is the time limit—about 12 weeks—around which most debates take place in other civilised countries. Beyond that time limit there must be specific criteria and a consultant's judgment should be required.
Therefore, I propose that, for up to 12 weeks, the judgment of the woman's own GP should be sufficient. That would hasten abortions and provide a large economy


of private emotion, and private and public money, and take out of the debate about the upper limit the simple social ground of abortion.
It becomes harder and harder for hon. Members to justify later abortions on purely social grounds. It will never become harder to say, unless one is a Catholic, when it is wholly understandable, that between 12 and 24 weeks, when grotesque deformities occur, abortion should not take place. I believe that it should. I have therefore listed a range of exceptions, including significant handicaps, the mother's severe disability, whether mental or physical, and the classic exceptions of rape, incest and under-age pregnancy. Between 12 and 24 weeks, such exceptions should suffice.
The pro-life group's calling card rests on its validation of the over-arching importance of life, but is that really so? Would some of those babies wish to be born alive had they the ability to tell us? In sone of those circumstances, I do not believe that life is such a gift if abominable handicaps and pain are to be the new child's predestined future. On those grounds I justify abortion up to 24 weeks, and until the birth, only if the mother would either die or have significant, permanent, acute disability if the birth were to go ahead.
I commend those points to the Committee. They are in line with the legislation of Europe, Scandinavia, North America and, oddly enough, with the House of Lords' report of the year before last.

Mr. Duffy: The debate amply demonstrates that no issue raises more agonies of doubt and conscience than abortion. On the one side there is the natural revulsion at the destruction of life, and on the other side, the certain tragedies of desperate women. For nearly 2,000 years of Christian civilisation, taking the life of an unborn child was regarded as a vile and heinous moral offence that degraded humanity. The Hippocratic oath that preceded that view forbade abortion. There is no more reactionary deed, because abortion turns life into death.
Every unborn child that is aborted is witness to our failure to have created a society in which every child can be received into our world with love and affection. Worst of all, abortion is a defeat for women. Far from offering an extension of women's freedom, it is often an enslavement, given the pressures that come from family and other quarters.
At bottom, every abortion is a grave issue of fundamental morality, not simply a matter of amoral social convenience. However, hon. Members do not like grappling with truly moral issues, whether they involve destructive embryonic experimentation, divorce, homosexuality or even hanging. It is the arguments of social utility, rather than essential morality, on which hon. Members ultimately prefer to rest their case. Even hon. Members who wish to reform the 1967 Act, too often shrink from making the assertion that lies beneath their unease, that abortion is a morally wrong act that can be justified, if ever, only by a greater moral imperative.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Mr. Duffy: I shall give way, but I must watch the clock.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that research carried out in the United States

shows that 82 per cent. of women who have had their pregnancy terminated suffer from post-abortion syndrome?

Mr. Duffy: Yes, I am aware of that, and I am glad that the hon. Lady has reminded the Committee of it.
Is it not illogical of Parliament to provide legal protection for human embryos from two weeks onwards yet not to be concerned for the future of that protected embryo at 18, 20, 24, 26 or 28 weeks? As in yesterday's debate on embryonic research, the issue today turns first on the question of when life really begins. Clearly the onus of proof lay yesterday with the embryonic researchers: they evaded it. Similarly, the onus of proof lies overwhelmingly tonight with those who want to terminate pregnancies. When do they say life begins? If at 28 weeks, why not at 27 or 20? If not at 20, why not at 40?
If, moreover, it is proper to defend the life of the unborn child when it is damaged in the womb by a drug such as thalidomide, why is it so illiberal to defend it against being aborted? Yet it would be an ignoble sort of Member who possessed no moral code about life or death or who failed to give that code precedence over social convenience.
The conscience of the nation is plainly uneasy. The once extremist goal of abortion on demand has long since been realised, at least for those with enough persistence or private funding. Deeming the decision to be one of medicine only stands revealed as the legal fiction it always was. The de facto ground for abortion in the great mass of cases is now that of serious inconvenience to the mother—nothing more or less.

Mrs. Wise: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duffy: I will, but I remind the hon. Lady that I must watch the clock, so I shall not give way again.

Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend has said that abortion takes place on grounds of serious inconvenience. He is therefore suggesting that women have an extremely frivolous attitude to the whole matter. Does he think that a woman who would undertake an abortion on such grounds would suitably be compelled to be a mother? If that is his opinion of women, I tremble for the children of this nation.

Mr. Duffy: My hon. Friend is responsible for the construction that she puts on my arguments, which I shall develop a little later in the light of experience in my own city of Sheffield.
As I have mentioned Sheffield, perhaps I could add that Dr. R. E. J. Ryder, now at the Hallamshire hospital in that city and a former senior registrar in medicine at the Northern general hospital, informs me that 18 weeks is the time when the mother commonly starts to feel her baby moving. Bonding begins, and abortion takes on a more traumatic character. Even if we still have doubts, Dr. Ryder insists that the case that the entity is not a living human being will always be shrouded with uncertainty. Thus, in our society, in which one is innocent until proved guilty, it must be wrong to kill a baby in utero if there is any possibility that it is a live human being.
Those who oppose any amendment do so because they fear that women will return to the back streets or because they fear that it will penalise married women who already have enough children. But back-street abortion deaths were dropping before the Abortion Act came into


operation. Surveys of class profiles show that the section of the population most opposed to abortion are working-class women; the section most in favour of it are upper-class men. Free and easy abortion is in the interests of men because it removes the problem of pregnancy, and women are well aware of that. As for penalising married women, the majority of abortions after 18 weeks are on single women and the largest number of abortions at this stage are upon women who have no children.
10 pm
Given the exemptions, the Bill deals with social abortions after 18 weeks, for the most part of perfectly healthy babies. Are they necessary? That is the issue before the House. The issue is not late referrals. In 1986, young girls and menopausal women accounted for only about 5 per cent. of late abortions. The report entitled "Late Abortions in England and Wales" which was published by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in 1984 says on page 39 that it absolves NHS facilities and referring doctors from responsibility for a delayed abortion. It blames
late presentation to a doctor by the women.
All that is borne out in my city of Sheffield, where, over the five years from 1984 to 1988, the number of abortions increased by 7 per cent. Over the period from 1980 to 1986, the increase was of the order of 14 per cent. Some 71 per cent. of Sheffield women having abortions are single, and that is well above the average in the Trent region and in England and Wales. The percentage of Sheffield women having abortions who are married is lower than in the rest of the region and in England and Wales. Within the National Health Service in Sheffield, abortion has increased from 54 per cent. to nearly 60 per cent. over the past five years.
My inference from the information that is available to me about present practices in Sheffield is that there have been no cases during the period that I have mentioned of abortions to save the life of the mother. In 1986, there were 10 handicap exemptions, which is less than 1 per cent. More than 80 per cent. involved women in the three age groups 16 to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 to 34 and, as I have said, almost 70 per cent. of them were single girls. That leaves approximately 10 per cent., which is accounted for by women over 35, and 4 per cent. by girls under 16.
It is not possible to ascertain how compelling or trivial are the social reasons that constitute ground 2 on which most of those abortions are now taking place in Sheffield and how many involved the same women. if the Minister had given way to me earlier in the debate, I would have asked her to help the House, because, although the medical statistics division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is more helpful now than it was in recent years, it will still not entertain such questions.
Without more information, none of us, with the possible exception of the Secretary of State, can know what is happening to ground 2. It is certain that ground 2 covers the great majority of abortions in Sheffield and, presumably, involves healthy children. Abortions are making growing and unjustified claims on the National Health Service in Sheffield at a time of scarce medical resources.
Yesterday, the House discussed the problem of infertility and I mentioned the child work in the fertility clinic in Sheffield and in the corresponding department of the Jessop hospital for women, linked with the university.

I described the pains that those responsible for that work in Sheffield are taking and the direction in which they are moving to get around some of the ethical objections voiced by hon. Members in yesterday's debate. It is plain that scarce resources are being used for ground 2 claims for abortion in Sheffield. Those resources might go to relieve the anxiety of infertile and childless couples.
In trying to assess the impact of the Bill on Sheffield, I can arrive only at approximate figures. It appears that some 80 babies will be affected by the 18-week limit: 40 by the 20-week limit, 20 by the 22-week limit; and hardly any by the 24-week limit. Not all those babies will be linked with Sheffield. Apart from exemptions, they will all be perfectly healthy children. What will be their future? That is the central question facing hon. Members when they vote. Has not the time arrived for the House to reconsider the time limits for abortion, and preferably to agree upon lower limits? I shall vote for the lowest limit.

Mr. David Amess: This is the most important debate in which I have taken part since I became a Member of Parliament. It is about the sanctity of life and all that that means. I want to draw on my personal experiences. My wife has not suffered a miscarriage, nor has she suffered an abortion. We are very fortunate in having four healthy children. Indeed, our last baby was delivered only two weeks ago. I was present at the birth and also throughout the labour. I witnessed the miracle of life. Any hon. Member who has experienced that will recognise the emotion and the euphoria felt on the occasion of the safe delivery of a child.
When I look at our baby Alexandra, I clearly recall the stage when I and my wife went to our excellent hospital in Basildon for a scan. It was at the 18th week of gestation. We clearly saw a picture of the baby. We saw our baby's head moving, her arms moving, her legs moving, and then we saw our baby, at 18 weeks, sucking her thumb. There was no doubt in our minds that she was a human being. She was real: she was our baby. When she was delivered to my wife at 40 weeks, the only real difference was that she was larger. She looked exactly the same. I have a picture of that scan to prove it.
This is very much a debate about the sanctity of life. I am confused about how hon. Members square their views on these issues. I entered politics because I actually care about people's lives——

Ms. Short: That is why you are a Tory.

Mr. Amess: I shall comment on that remark in a moment.
I care about people's lives and I was sent here to represent the people of Basildon. I am not prepared to speak on behalf of the men of Basildon and I would not dream of saying that I speak on behalf of the women of Basildon. I was sent here to represent all the people in my constituency. We spend all our time discussing laws, education, defence and the economy, all of which affect people's lives. There is no dispute that we all regard life as precious. In fact, I should be surprised if there were any hon. Members who were not extremely glad to be here. At the time of their conception, there was no question about the right to choose.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) referred to the fact that I am a Conservative. In an ideal world I would hope that abortion would be avoided in every case. I am not an idealist and that is probably why


I support the party that I do. I am a realist and I accept what I have to cope with in the House when we come to vote.
Therefore, despite the remarks that were made earlier about the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and other organisations, all of which I regret because they rather spoilt the debate, I shall not be returning year after year. There is no plot among those who share my views to keep returning to the House. What are people frightened of? They are wrong to be frightened. Tonight we shall have the opportunity democratically to vote. Let us not personalise the debate.
I despair at the way in which the 1967 Act has worked in practice. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) introduced that legislation with the best intentions, but it has resulted in 170,000 abortions each year, 96 per cent. of which are undertaken for social reasons. I fully recognise that no woman would lightly undertake an abortion. There are no circumstances under which an abortion——

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amess: It would be unfair to those hon. Members who are waiting to speak. I apologise.
I understand the arguments made earlier about a woman's right to choose, disability, the time delay in medical diagnosis, back-street abortions and every child being a wanted child. But I find it impossible to reconcile my respect for life with all the matters that have been raised. Twenty-three years after the 1967 Act, 22½-weekold babies are being kept alive in our special baby care units. I have heard the remarks about the NHS, but that is certainly the case at Basildon. How on earth can we have special baby care units fighting to keep babies alive at 22½ weeks while, for whatever reason, they can still be destroyed in the same hospital?
Sadly, we live in an aggressive and violent society. I meet aggression every day of the week. We see it on the tube. We experience it among drivers. There is no longer respect for humanity. That is highlighted by what the House has done since 1967.
I do not regard a reduction of four weeks in the time limit for abortion as a fair reflection of 23 years of advancement in medical science. Therefore, please let us take the opportunity tonight to restore the esteem of the House by recognising the dignity of life. Let us make this a proud day for Parliament and at least legislate to protect babies who are capable of being born alive.

Ms. Short: The problem throughout this deeply unimpressive debate—I say that in all seriousness—is that we are not discussing where the real division of opinion in the Committee lies. A substantial minority of hon. Members believe that abortion should never, ever be allowed. I disagree with that view, but I respect it.
I come from an Irish Catholic background. I was brought up in the Catholic Church. My mother lives with me and goes to mass every morning. She does not believe in abortion and I respect that position. I do not agree with her and neither do any of her other four daughters, but we all get along with and respect each other.
What I do not respect is a debate led by people of that view—the hon. Members for Maidstone (Miss

Widdecombe) and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), the Father of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy)—who believe that abortion should never be allowed but who, instead of having the integrity, honesty and straightforwardness to put that position before the House and to argue for it, pretend to talk about time limits. Because they are absolute fundamentalists and hold the view that all abortions should be prohibited, the evidence that they present to the Committee is biased, and they distort fact and reality.
I pay tribute to Lord Houghton and to the quality of his reports, which many right hon. and hon. Members have not even read.
Viability is reached at 24 weeks. My local hospital has one of those wonderful baby care units in which precious and wanted babies are kept alive by tubes. The problem is that most of them do not survive, and those who do are brain-damaged for the rest of their lives. If one studies the development of a baby, it is clear that it cannot independently sustain life much before 24 weeks because its lungs are not formed. Those are the medical facts, but so-called right hon. and hon. Members, who really want all abortions to be made illegal, try to trick the Committee and the public into accepting a lower time limit than is defensible. They distort reality and put false information before the Committee. I do not respect that, and it does little credit to Parliament itself.

Mr. Mallon: In fairness to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) who spoke in yesterday's debate, and whose contribution is in Hansard, and to myself, we both made very clear the views that we hold. We were not hiding our light under any bushel, but making clear our belief that the destruction of a human being is wrong in any circumstances.

Ms. Short: I am sorry, but I have no respect for right hon. and hon. Members who hold that view and who do not have the guts to state their position. If there was a vote, they know that they would be overwhelmingly defeated. We could then have a rational debate on the proper framework of the law.
I do not believe that I have a right to make moral decisions for every individual in our society. What is needed is a sensible, defensible and serious legal framework within which individual women and families can make their own decisions—given all the pressures, aspects of morality and worries that confront them. Part of that defensible framework of law would be to say that once a foetus is capable of independent survival and no longer dependent on its mother, it has a right to live. That is the framework of previous law.
In current law, the time limit is 24 weeks, other than in exceptional cases. The law says that one cannot abort a foetus that is capable of being born alive. Because of advances in medical science, the limit has fallen to 24 weeks, and the number of post-24 week abortions is now minute. They relate to hard cases such as very late detection of severe abnormalities on the very young girl who has been sexually abused and did not know that she was pregnant. They are tiny in number. We already have a good framework of law that operates sensibly.
I also have no respect for the Government's action; they had no need to bring this clause before the House. As


a result of the lies presented in SPUC's case, which was designed to confuse public opinion and to suggest that there are many late abortions, the Government are trying to appease its supporters. The Government thought about and talked about tabling Lord Houghton's Bill in this House. I would have supported that very constructive move, but there were internal divisions in the Tory party, the SPUC supporters made their views known in the Whips' Office, and there were conflicts with the Secretary of State for Health. The result is the nonsense that is before the Committee tonight.
There will be a whole series of Divisions tonight from which many right hon. and hon. Members will be absent, while others will not really know what they are voting for. Rational decisions will not be made—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself."] I am speaking for myself.
I agree with the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) that we should seek to improve our law and prevent preventable late abortions. It is sinful and unforgiveable that many women who come forward for abortions before 12 weeks have post-18 weeks abortions because of delays in our National Health system and because of delays caused by doctors processing their cases. That is outrageous and disgraceful.
If the rhetoric and regret about late abortions were true, the hon. Members for Maidstone and for Mossley Hill would be queuing up to demand the right of women to have an abortion up to 12 weeks with reference to one doctor. That is what they would do if they really wanted to prevent late abortions. Many preventable late abortions would then be prevented. Instead, those hon. Members are trying to trick and fib. They are trying to make all abortions illegal.
Whatever the outcome of our Divisions tonight, this will not be the end of the issue. The hon. Members to whom I have referred will be back. If it is not those hon. Members because they have made promises, it will be others. I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Health has involved himself in this shabby game, with such an irrational method of inviting the House to reach a decision.
The case of SPUC is encapsulated in the postcard that it used for so long. That postcard carried an attractive picture, which had been coloured, of a foetus which was supposedly sucking its thumb. Of course that picture was a complete lie. That 22-year-old picture of a natural miscarriage had been taken in a laboratory in Sweden. It had been tinted and coloured up. That is the SPUC case. It is misleading and pretending to the public that lots of late abortions are like that. That is not true.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Short: I do not have time to give way. In fairness to other hon. Members who have been waiting to speak, I should not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The present framework of practice in Britain is reasonable. Post 24-week abortions do not happen except in the most extreme and distressing cases. The only change that we need to that law is to speed up abortion at the early end so that young women who come forward early do not end up having late abortions. That change is not on offer to the Committee today and that is deeply regrettable.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not want to detain the Committee, and perhaps another hon. Member can speak before the winding-tip speeches.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that we have a very reasonable law with regard to termination. That law has stood the test of time for the vast majority of people. The Lancet reported in December last year that 75 per cent. of the people in this country are satisfied with the working of the Abortion Act 1967. However, I do not want to see restrictions on women's access to abortions. I want to see an improvement in financing and facilities to reduce the number of later abortions. I hope that all hon. Members would agree that we should be aiming for that.
Eighty-seven per cent. of late abortions in this country take place within 12 weeks of pregnancy, and less than 2 per cent. take place when a pregnancy is over 20 weeks. According to the 1988 figures, only 23 abortions in England, Wales and Scotland were performed over the present 24-week limit.
In a recent survey, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists found that only 3 per cent. of its members were in favour of an 18-week time limit, which appears in an amendment tonight. Organisations representing the medical profession have said that the limit for clinical practice—what doctors actually do—will be between two and four weeks lower than the legal limit, allowing for a margin of error in calculating the duration of pregnancy. People are saying to the House that, in effect, 14 weeks, 12 weeks or even less will be the time limit for the termination of pregnancy.
Those who talk about their despair about the Abortion Act 1967 and how it has been implemented do not recognise the despair caused by the fact that abortion is again on the agenda. People did not believe that the law would be changed, as is proposed. Some hon. Members will support the limit of 18 weeks tonight. When they have achieved that, they will attack another aspect of the 1967 Act and then another, until they have whittled away women's rights to abortion.
Those hon. Members doing this at a time when the deficiencies of the National Health Service are stark. We hear reports of delays of four weeks in reporting pregnancy test results. We see headlines in the newpapers, such as one in The Guardian on 2 April:
Birth control hit by cash squeeze".
When the lack of contraceptive services, especially for young people, is becoming acute in some areas, we are being asked to support punitive measures.
The right hon.Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said that a survey reported on national television this week showed that one third of health authorities were reducing their family planning services. In 1982, a study by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists revealed that a significant number of abortions performed after 20 weeks were the result of avoidable delays by general practitioners and failures in the organisation of NHS services. In addition, women have no way of knowing, when they first visit their general practitioner, what that doctor's non-medical views on abortion are.
I wish that those hon. Members who threaten people who are in dire need and have been for many years would argue for the betterment within the National Health Service of counselling and contraceptive services, so that people are not led into wanting an abortion in the first place. Since the introduction of the 1967 Act, any retreat


to the back-street abortionist to whom women had to go before we had legal termination in this country must be avoided.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: It has been difficult to listen with equanimity to some of the speeches today, particularly a speech which cast a slur on women by saying that since the Abortion Act 1967 their concern for the sanctity of life had been lessened. It is poverty which reduces the value of life, and those who voted for the freezing of child benefit might bear that in mind. Women are pro-life. They bear the children and take the main responsibility for bringing them up. They do the unpaid work of managing the family and they should make the decision on what is best for their family.
This has been a phoney debate. We have seen the opportunism of hon. Members who have made sanctimonious speeches but are prepared to compromise to get their foot in the door. They intend eventually not just to attack all abortion rights, but to attack contraceptive rights. They have already attacked the French contraceptive pill. If they really cared about doing away with late abortions and did their best to prevent the few late abortions that there are, they would be in favour of abortion on request. Unfortunately, we are unable to discuss or vote on that tonight. Those hon. Members would be in favour of improved sex education and of all the points outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).
Above all, those hon. Members would want to improve social conditions. Instead of sending round plastic foetuses, why do they not think of the real world, where so many miscarriages take place in the first few months of pregnancy and where still-births take place at seven months because mothers are dragging babies and prams up flights of stairs or have to live on poor diets? Why do those hon. Members not concern themselves with saving lives by improving the conditions for such people?
Those who have been spearheading the SPUC campaign are concerned not so much with saving life as with control over women's lives. Let us remember that the women of Romania, in fighting for freedom, want above all the freedom to have legal abortions. That should be a lesson to us.
To reduce the number of weeks within which abortion is legal would be a form of cruelty to women. My generation and that of my mother remember the shadow that was cast over women's lives by the fear of pregnancy, particularly when they were not in a position to have more children and when their health and social conditions, already extremely low, could not tolerate larger families. Every month their relations with their partners were crippled and there were severe burdens on doctors, who either had to break the law or turn away desperate patients, and then deal with the mess of septicaemia and other causes of death resulting from back-street abortions, which a whittling down of the present law would bring back.
Women should have the right to choose. All women are pro-life. Women do not enter abortions lightly because their very nature bonds them to the life that they are carrying. They have the right to decide what is best for their families—and almost all women, given the chance, choose correctly.

Ms. Harman: The votes that will take place tonight will be on the time limit up to which abortion can lawfully take place and the grounds on which it can be justified. But many hon. Members have spoken about the number of abortions that take place, and that is the subject with which I shall start.
Nobody believes that a high abortion rate is good, and of course it is desirable to reduce the number of abortions, but the matter must be put in perspective. As the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said, the abortion rate in the United Kingdom is lower than the rate in France, Norway, Italy, Germany and numerous other countries. We are by no means high in the international league table of abortion rates.
I agree with those who say that it is still too high, but what divides us is the way in which we might reduce the number of abortions. Some argue that the rate should be cut by forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies. I argue that we should help women to avoid unwanted pregnancies. There are 200,000 unplanned and regretted pregnancies every year in this country. Contraception is no easy matter. An unwanted pregnancy is not the result of fecklessness on the part of a woman.
The battle for safe, effective, accessible contraceptive services is far from won. Yet across England, Scotland and Wales, family planning services are being cut. Cash-starved district health authorities, desperate to avoid closing another hospital or ward, desperate to avoid again reporting longer waiting lists to the Department of Health, are picking on family planning services as a soft option for cuts.
The scale of those cuts, year after year, has been disastrous: Sheffield, 31 per cent.; Gravesend, 50 per cent.; Chichester, 50 per cent.; Cheltenham, 55 per cent.; Mid-Essex, 48 per cent. cut. The list is endless. Unless the Government step in now, the cash crisis in health authorities will spell the destruction of family planning clinics and lead to more unwanted pregnancies.
Where has been the protest of those who say that they want to reduce the number of abortions? Those who, like us, want fewer women having to seek abortion, should join us in demanding that the Government call a halt to cuts in the family planning service, that they review the number of unplanned and regretted pregnancies, particularly among teenagers, and that they step up the contraceptive training of GPs and nurses, thereby developing a strategy for reducing the large number of unplanned and regretted pregnancies. Such action would reduce the number of abortions far more dramatically than would reducing the time limit to 20 or even 18 weeks.
Some health authorities have tried to take such steps, despite the current cash crisis. South Warwickshire health authority, for example, concerned about the high level of abortions in its district, has developed a strategy which it hopes will reduce the number of abortions by a quarter before the end of the century. It includes work with local schools to improve sex education, better advertising of family planning services and increased access to services. We should look at the Netherlands, for example, where there are fewer restrictions on time limits than we have, but, because there are better planning services there, there are far fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions as


a result. That is the way to cut the number of abortions, not by restricting access to abortion to those who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy.
Concern has been expressed about the number of late abortions. The case has been put that cutting time limits will cut the number of late abortions, but that would solve the problem of late abortions at the expense of the women who seek them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said, the way to reduce the number of late abortions is not to deny abortions to the women who need a late abortion but to try to deal with the cause of late abortions, and that is to improve services so that, when abortion is necessary, it can be carried out as early as possible in the pregnancy. It is not as though the Government do not know that. Countless reports have shown up the inadequacies of the Health Service as a substantial cause of late abortion.
In 1981 and in 1985 Isobel Allen of the Policy Studies Institute reported on delays caused by GPs and consultants. As the anecdote related by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) about the girl in the next village demonstrated, in 1984 the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reported that one in five women who had abortions later than 20 weeks had approached their doctor asking for an abortion more than eight weeks earlier—before 12 weeks. What is needed in practical terms—if hon. Members are interested in practical ways of reducing the toll of late abortions—is better diagnosis of pregnancy, quicker referral for women who seek abortions and better abortion services throughout the United Kingdom. That is the way to cut late abortions, not by restricting access to abortion for those women whom the Health Service has failed.
However good our family planning services, however good our referral system, however good access throughout the country, there will still be some cases when women will seek abortion after 20 weeks, after 22 weeks, and even after 24 weeks. That is where the debate has become most heated. We are talking about only a small percentage of the total number of abortions, so I should like to put the matter in perspective. Eighty-four per cent. of all abortions were performed at under 13 weeks, 14 per cent. were performed between 13 and 20 weeks, and only 1·7 per cent were performed at over 20 weeks. In the whole of last year, only 22 abortions were carried out after 24 weeks.
Among later abortions we see the most tragic and the most difficult cases—first, young girls who at first do not realise that they are pregnant, and although desperate to end the pregnancy, are afraid to seek help and therefore do not go to the doctor until the pregnancy is 22 weeks, say, because they are afraid that they might be kicked out of the home and they do not know where to turn; and, secondly, women who develop pregnancy-induced hypertension, who continue with a planned pregnancy for as long as possible, but it becomes clear at 24 weeks, say, that the continuation of the pregnancy could mean kidney damage for the woman or even permanent blindness.
I should like hon, Members to consider the case of a woman called Meriel Gillman, whom I had the chance of meeting last week. She had a son and had been trying for another child for 10 years. When she finally became pregnant at 40, she and her husband were overjoyed. She told me, "No one could have wanted a baby more than we wanted that baby." Because she was 40, she was offered extensive ante-natal screening—blood tests, urine tests, corionic villus sampling, blood pressure tests, and all the

tests were clear. But her blood pressure became raised at 27 weeks. It was then discovered, after exhaustive testing, that the foetus had severe spina bifida, urino-genital problems, a deformed rib cage, small lungs and numerous other problems. Seven doctors were involved in the diagnoses in that one day, and the following day she had an abortion.
I should not dream of casting a moral judgment on the painful choice that Meriel had to make and of saying that such an abortion was so morally wrong that it should be made a criminal offence. Nor would I dream of casting a moral judgment against a woman who is against abortion and decides that she will carry on with the pregnancy, despite knowing that the child will be born with a severe handicap. It must be for those women themselves to make that choice, and whatever choice they make, they deserve our compassion and our full support, not empty moral judgments from a distance.
If hon. Members share my view that there must be a choice for women such as Meriel and the other two cases that I have mentioned, they should vote for limits that are no more restrictive than the combination of the new clause and amendments, which together would give us the result that the House of Lords so recently supported in Lord Houghton's Bill, which commands wide support within the medical profession and, I believe, is anchored in public opinion.
Lord Houghton's Bill implements the unanimous recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. It lays down a time limit of 24 weeks. After that, abortion would not be legal as it is now up to 28 weeks, except that the Houghton Bill allows that, after 24 weeks a pregnancy may be lawfully terminated, if there is a risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or if two doctors believe that it is essential to prevent serious damage to the woman's health, or on the grounds of a substantial risk of such foetal abnormality as to involve serious handicap.
I should have thought that that could command a broad consensus. That formula is most nearly achieved by amending new clause 4 with amendments (b), (f), ), (k), (m) and (q). I apologise for the publication of that list, but as hon. Members have said, it was not our choice that this procedure has been chosen.
The time limit of 24 weeks was not arrived at arbitrarily. When deciding on an abortion, doctors err on the side of caution and, in practice, a 24-week limit would mean something like a 22-week limit or even a 20-week limit. Medical opinion—and the view of the Department of Health—is that the chances of survival at 22 weeks are negligible. The presumption is that the foetus is not viable at 22 weeks, so a 24-week time limit would effectively be a 22-week time limit, at which, I repeat, medical opinion is agreed that the foetus is not viable. For the future, doctors believe that they can increase the chances of survival for babies after 24 weeks, but because of the insufficiency of development, they do not expect to be able to keep babies born at 22 weeks alive in the foreseeable future.
Making the time limit more restrictive than the present law or than Houghton would have another sad effect. It would increase the number of abortions on the grounds of foetal abnormality, because screening can show different things at different stages of the pregnancy. A blood test at 16 weeks can suggest the probability of an abnormality, but the doctors will advise the woman to hang on for a few further weeks because the child might be all right a nd a further conclusive test can then be carried out——

Miss Widdecombe: rose——

Ms. Harman: Let me just finish this point about diagnostic tests.
The woman is then able—this is a regular occurrence—to continue with the pregnancy knowing that, if her worst fears are realised and there is a serious abnormality, she can still have the pregnancy terminated. If the possibility of a later abortion is taken away—as it would be, for example, under amendment (j), which I know that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) will support—the chances are that that woman will seek an abortion earlier than she otherwise would.

Miss Widdecombe: rose——

Ms. Harman: So those who seek—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I shall not give way.
Those who seek to cut the time limit to below 24 weeks for foetal abnormality will, paradoxically, have brought about a situation in which many more, possibly normal, pregnancies are terminated.
There has been vociferous lobbying on the matter, but I believe that public opinion is clear. Four out of five people are against reducing the time limit below 24 weeks. Most Members of Parliament have never found themselves, as a teenager, lonely, afraid and pregnant. Most hon. Members have never had a pregnancy which, if they carried it on, would threaten them with a brain haemorrhage, blindness or a nervous breakdown. Most hon. Members have never faced the prospect that every woman dreads, that there is something terribly wrong with their baby. But there are women in this country who face that dilemma and will face it in future. Hon. Members must not vote that women who are in a position that they hope never to be in themselves, should lose the choice of having that pregnancy terminated.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I begin by agreeing with the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on the general point with which she started. The first thing that we should all agree on in the Committee is that we should do everything possible to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and late abortions and get to the root cause of the problem by making sure that as full and comprehensive as possible a range of family planning services, sex education and aid and support is available through the National Health Service so as to minimise the number of potential tragedies that all cases of abortion represent.
This is not the occasion for me to debate the comments of the hon. Member for Peckham about the changes taking place in the Health Service. However, I begin by making it clear that there is no difference of principle between us. The NHS provides free family planning services. About 4 million patients per year take advantage of those services. Certainly, the services are changing, but all our guidance makes it clear that we expect the health authorities to continue to provide a full range of service and a balanced service. The service is bound to change over the years—above all, I hope, because it must reflect the preferences of women and whether they wish to obtain that service from their general practitioner or family planning clinic.
We know that there is sometimes much local controversy when changes to the pattern of family planning clinics are proposed, but those changes should

never be made purely on financial grounds. Sometimes they can be made on the basis of changes in patients' choice and the best use of resources. It is only since the 1970s that GPs have provided free family planning services. Now the majority go to their GP rather than to their clinic. It is inevitable that that gives rise to changes in some parts of the country.
For probably the only occasion in my speech, I must touch on the usual allegations that the hon. Member for Peckham made about a cash crisis, cuts in clinics, and so on. The cost to the NHS of family planning services was £33 million when we took over and £84 million for 1987–88, the last year for which we have figures.
The debate is not about family planning services, particularly as there is no difference of policy between the Opposition and the Government. It is about the Abortion Act 1967, whether the time has come to revise it and, if so, how. I arrived in the House just a year or two too late to vote for the 1967 Act. Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been an open and strong supporter of the Act. In my opinion, that Act was one of the more civilised and liberalising measures of the past few years and has made a profound change to our society which on balance has been beneficial.
I am sorry that an urgent appointment stopped me from listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), but I have heard a summary of what he said. He went back to the underlying policy of the 1967 Act and no doubt repeated arguments with which, over the years, I have usually agreed whenever he has expounded the underlying philosophy of the 1967 Act.
In the past I have taken part in debates and voted in Divisions on abortion, and I have consistently been against the repeated attempts of many members of the pro-life lobby in the Committee to make changes to that Act. I remember voting against the Bill of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and voting with many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have spoken against the spirit of that measure today.
The reason why we are voting on abortion today, despite the history with which we are all familiar, is that a change has taken place in the past year or two. Hon. Members who have always fundamentally opposed the 1967 Act clearly wish to keep returning to it. However, in recent years many supporters of the 1967 Act have felt that the time has come to make some changes to the law. In particular, there has been growing uncertainty about whether the time limits are wholly satisfactory.
I listened with care to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), but I am afraid that I do not always agree with her underlying philosophy, as she well knows. However, she is right about the unsatisfactory nature of the law and the relationship between the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and the Abortion Act 1967. It is time to review the present time limit in the 1929 Act and the House has been trying to do that. I think that for some years all hon. Members have wanted to change it, regardless of their views on the underlying Act.
Certainly it has been a serious matter ever since 1985, when the working party of the Royal College said that in practice 24 weeks was a much better guide which doctors should use when considering whether a baby could be born alive. I was the Minister of Health who introduced the


arrangement which made it clear to private clinics licensed for late abortions that we would probably not renew licences if they persisted with them after 24 weeks. That is why the few operations after that date have been carried out in National Health Service hospitals.
For a long time many of us have waited for a Warnock Bill and an attempt to tackle the subject of embryo research. I must confess that in contemplating the Bill I was not instinctively attracted to the idea of debating the abortion law at the same time as discussing the introduction of law on embryo research. Even in the past month or two I have genuinely changed my mind, and today's debate has confirmed that. These subjects are so closely related that this is a suitable opportunity for the House to have a day at the end of which it can come to a conclusion, which should last a long time, on the time limits and future operation of the 1967 Act and its relationship with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and I have tried to provide the best framework for a judgment to be reached on what is inevitably an extremely complex series of interrelated aspects of time limits for abortion. It is futile, particularly for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) with whom I broadly agree on the underlying subject, to make all these attacks on the way in which we have devised the procedure.
It would have been difficult to start with Houghton because it is an extremely liberalising measure. It does not start down the middle of the strongly held passions that we have heard. It is more difficult to devise the range of options on both sides which hon. Members can use to construct their preferred solution if we start with Houghton rather than my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House's new clause and all the amendments. If hon. Members follow the debate and the guides to voting, and contemplate their personal positions seriously, as we all will, the Government have provided a perfectly adequate and probably overdue opportunity for us to exercise our undoubted duty to make our best judgment according to our own conscience on the matter.
We are not debating or voting on the policy of having legalised abortion under the 1967 Act—[Interruption.] it seems that some people are—not surprisingly, people do not leave their views behind. During the debate we have heard impassioned views from one side and the other—my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on one side of the argument, and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who probably made the most dramatic intervention, from the other.
I do not agree with the position taken at either end of the argument. I am probably not the only hon. Member who on Saturday found my surgery being lobbied by two groups—the Socialist Workers party outside with a tannoy attacking Tory attempts to restrict a woman's right to choose, and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children inside, presenting me with an embryo and demanding that we reduce the limit to 18 weeks.
My judgments are my own. I propose to make a complex series of judgments when voting for and against the various amendments. I shall not vote against my conscience and my judgments are not totally determined by what the majority of my constituents think. As it happens, I believe that the majority of my constituents

—pleasant, provincial, rural and suburban people in Nottinghamshire—share my view. I believe that the vast majority believe that the present law is about right except that the time scales are wrong and need to be revised, and that we need to take some notice of the royal colleges' opinions. In a simple way, that represents the way in which I shall vote, although people will appreciate that the issues are more complex.
We are talking about late abortions and the time limit which should apply to the limited number of such abortions. How restrictive should we be in the generality of cases? What exceptions should we make to that restriction for what have been described as the hard cases where grave permanent injury might result to the mother should the pregnancy continue, severe foetal abnormalities are present, and so on. If we do not go too far in making change and if we keep close to the consensus of medical opinion, we shall improve the 1967 Act.
Some argue that there is no need for change and that, despite the working group and the opinion of the royal colleges, everything is all right as it is. Those who believe that can take a simple step by voting against new clause 4 being read a Second time. If they are successful, everything will remain as it is in England and Scotland regarding the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and the Abortion Act 1967.
If new clause 4 is passed, it is important to note the change that it will make to the law as it introduces time limits into the 1967 Act for the first time. Those new time limits for various purposes will exist alongside the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which will continue with the rebuttable presumptions either way, unless amended, at the 28-week stage.
Attendance in the Chamber is now reaching its peak and hon. Members will want to know how to vote correctly during the next couple of hours. I trust that as many as possible will remain, as the final Division will be the clause stand part vote on whatever the House has decided.
In the three minutes remaining, I shall not add to the information given. Lest people outside argue that whatever view is decided was reached in ignorance, hon. Members should ensure that they have their copy of the explanatory note from my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House setting out what all the amendments mean. [Interruption.] For those who cannot understand it and, like me, believe that as a response to a request for an idiot's guide it did not quite fit the bill, the Government Whips Office will make available for the convenience of all hon. Members, regardless of views, a one-page document which simplifies the issues. It will be made available on application to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). If used in conjunction with detailed, careful reference to the guide issued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, that document will explain clearly what every vote is about.
The opening speech of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is also available and she set all the issues extremely carefully. People outside should also know that my hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone and Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) produced their own guides for those who share their respective opinions. We can therefore begin on the process of settling the matter for some time.
The starting point of new clause 4, which I expect to be carried if the majority believe that the present law requires


some change—there can be no change unless it is carried—is a 24-week limit for the most important grounds upon which legal abortions are permitted. I want to see a 24-week solution because I am persuaded by the opinion of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that that is the best limit to which to move now and I know that the royal college holds that view strongly. Those who believe that will vote against the succeeding five amendments from (a) to (e), but the amendments are perfectly clear as to the alternative limits that they would substitute if people do not want 24 weeks. A clear look will show that there are higher limits to cover most other eventualities.
I hope that amendment (q) will be carried and that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act is not left standing alongside the Abortion Act. To have two sets of time limits would be confusing in practice. I therefore hope that there will be a single test, with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act applying only to non-Abortion Act cases.
We have had an adequate debate, with expressions of passion and desire, to settle the matter so that the public know that Parliament has given an up-to-date opinion as to what the law on this sensitive matter should be. I hope that in the next hour or two we can resolve the matter and live up to the high standards of debate that have prevailed for the past eight hours.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 409, Noes 152.

Division No. 168]
[11 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Alexander, Richard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bright, Graham


Allason, Rupert
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Alton, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amos, Alan
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arbuthnot, James
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Buck, Sir Antony


Ashby, David
Buckley, George J.


Aspinwall, Jack
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Burns, Simon


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butcher, John


Baldry, Tony
Butler, Chris


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Battle, John
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Canavan, Dennis


Beggs, Roy
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Beith, A. J.
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bell, Stuart
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bendall, Vivian
Carrington, Matthew


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cash, William


Benyon, W.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Blair, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Blunkett, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffie)


Body, Sir Richard
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clelland, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Colvin, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bowis, John
Corbett, Robin


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Cormack, Patrick





Couchman, James
Hayward, Robert


Cran, James
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Crowther, Stan
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cummings, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Dalyell, Tarn
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hill, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hinchliffe, David


Day, Stephen
Hind, Kenneth


Devlin, Tim
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Dewar, Donald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Holt, Richard


Dicks, Terry
Home Robertson, John


Dixon, Don
Hood, Jimmy


Douglas, Dick
Hordern, Sir Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Dunn, Bob
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Durant, Tony
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dykes, Hugh
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Eggar, Tim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Emery, Sir Peter
Hume, John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Evennett, David
Hunter, Andrew


Fallon, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Irving, Sir Charles


Favell, Tony
Jack, Michael


Fearn, Ronald
Janman, Tim


Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)
Janner, Greville


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Jessel, Toby


Flynn, Paul
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Forman, Nigel
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Fox, Sir Marcus
Kennedy, Charles


Freeman, Roger
Key, Robert


French, Douglas
Kilfedder, James


Fry, Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Gale, Roger
Kirkhope, Timothy


Galloway, George
Kirkwood, Archy


Gardiner, George
Knapman, Roger


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Gill, Christopher
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Lambie, David


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lang, Ian


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Latham, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Lawrence, Ivan


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Gorst, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Gow, Ian
Lee, John (Pendle)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Gregory, Conal
Lightbown, David


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Lilley, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Livsey, Richard


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Grist, Ian
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Grocott, Bruce
Lord, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Grylls, Michael
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
McAvoy, Thomas


Hague, William
McCrea, Rev William


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
McCrindle, Robert


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Hanley, Jeremy
McFall, John


Hannam, John
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Hardy, Peter
McGrady, Eddie


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
McKay, Allen (Bansley West)


Harris, David
Maclean, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Maclennan, Robert


Hawkins, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
McNamara, Kevin






Madel, David
Rowlands, Ted


Major, Rt Hon John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Malins, Humfrey
Ryder, Richard


Mallon, Seamus
Sackville, Hon Tom


Mans, Keith
Salmond, Alex


Marek, Dr John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Marlow, Tony
Shaw, David (Dover)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sheerman, Barry


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Shelton, Sir William


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Martlew, Eric
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Maude, Hon Francis
Sillars, Jim


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sims, Roger


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mellor, David
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Miller, Sir Hal
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mills, Iain
Speed, Keith


Miscampbell, Norman
Speller, Tony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mitchell, Sir David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moate, Roger
Squire, Robin


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Stern, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stevens, Lewis


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Straw, Jack


Mudd, David
Sumberg, David


Murphy, Paul
Summerson, Hugo


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Norris, Steve
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Brien, William
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thorne, Neil


Page, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Paice, James
Thurnham, Peter


Paisley, Rev Ian
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Parry, Robert
Tracey, Richard


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Trippier, David


Patten, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Pawsey, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pike, Peter L.
Vaz, Keith


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Portillo, Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Powell, William (Corby)
Walden, George


Price, Sir David
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Raffan, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rathbone, Tim
Wallace, James


Redwood, John
Waller, Gary


Reid, Dr John
Ward, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Warren, Kenneth


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wells, Bowen


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Robertson, George
Wheeler, Sir John


Robinson, Geoffrey
Whitney, Ray


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Widdecombe, Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wiggin, Jerry


Rooker, Jeff
Wilkinson, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wilshire, David


Rost, Peter
Wilson, Brian





Winterton, Mrs Ann
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Winterton, Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wolfson, Mark



Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. John Brazier and Mr. Edward Leigh.


Wray, Jimmy



Yeo, Tim





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Allen, Graham
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Armstrong, Hilary
Knox, David


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Leighton, Ron


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Lewis, Terry


Barron, Kevin
Litherland, Robert


Beckett, Margaret
Livingstone, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bidwell, Sydney
McAllion, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
McCartney, Ian


Boateng, Paul
McKelvey, William


Boyes, Roland
McLeish, Henry


Bradley, Keith
McWilliam, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Madden, Max


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maples, John


Buchan, Norman
Marland, Paul


Caborn, Richard
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Callaghan, Jim
Maxton, John


Cartwright, John
Meacher, Michael


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Meale, Alan


Clay, Bob
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cohen, Harry
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Coleman, Donald
Morgan, Rhodri


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Morley, Elliot


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Cousins, Jim
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cox, Tom
Mullin, Chris


Critchley, Julian
Neale, Gerrard


Cryer, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Cunningham, Dr John
O'Neill, Martin


Darling, Alistair
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Patchett, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Patnick, Irvine


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dobson, Frank
Prescott, John


Doran, Frank
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Radice, Giles


Eadie, Alexander
Redmond, Martin


Eastham, Ken
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Richardson, Jo


Fatchett, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Flannery, Martin
Ruddock, Joan


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Foster, Derek
Sedgemore, Brian


Foulkes, George
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fraser, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Short, Clare


George, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Gordon, Mildred
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Gould, Bryan
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Snape, Peter


Harman, Ms Harriet
Soley, Clive


Haynes, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Steinberg, Gerry


Henderson, Doug
Stott, Roger


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howells, Geraint
Strang, Gavin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Hoyle, Doug
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tredinnick, David


Illsley, Eric
Turner, Dennis


Ingram, Adam
Viggers, Peter


Johnston, Sir Russell
Walley, Joan






Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Winnick, David


Wigley, Dafydd
Wise, Mrs Audrey





Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Ms. Dawn Primarolo and Mrs. Maria Fyfe.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The first amendment is amendment (a), which seeks to make the 18th week the limit. I hope that all hon. Members are clear about that.

Amendment proposed to the new clause: (a), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'eighteenth'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 165, Noes 375.

Division No. 169]
[11.17 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hague, William


Alton, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Amess, David
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Amos, Alan
Hayes, Jerry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hayward, Robert


Ashby, David
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Aspinwall, Jack
Hill, James


Atkins, Robert
Hind, Kenneth


Battle, John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Beggs, Roy
Hume, John


Beith, A. J.
Hunter, Andrew


Bell, Stuart
Irvine, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Irving, Sir Charles


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Janman, Tim


Benyon, W.
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kilfedder, James


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bowis, John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Lambie, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Latham, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bright, Graham
Lilley, Peter


Burns, Simon
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Burt, Alistair
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Butler, Chris
McAvoy, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
McCrea, Rev William


Cash, William
Macdonald, Calum A.


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
McFall, John


Chope, Christopher
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
McGrady, Eddie


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McNamara, Kevin


Conway, Derek
Malins, Humfrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mallon, Seamus


Cormack, Patrick
Mans, Keith


Cummings, John
Marlow, Tony


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Day, Stephen
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Devlin, Tim
Maude, Hon Francis


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dicks, Terry
Mills, Iain


Douglas, Dick
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Monro, Sir Hector


Dover, Den
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Dunn, Bob
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Evennett, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Faulds, Andrew
Mudd, David


Favell, Tony
Murphy, Paul


Fearn, Ronald
Neubert, Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
Nicholls, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Norris, Steve


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fox, Sir Marcus
Page, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Paice, James


French, Douglas
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fry, Peter
Parry, Robert


Gale, Roger
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Patten, Rt Hon John


Gorst, John
Pawsey, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Grylls, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Redwood, John





Reid, Dr John
Thorne, Neil


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Thornton, Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tracey, Richard


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Trippier, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Vaz, Keith


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shelton, Sir William
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Sillars, Jim
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waller, Gary


Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)
Watts, John


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Whitney, Ray


Speed, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Lewis



Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy and Mr. Toby Jessel.


Summerson, Hugo



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Alexander, Richard
Clay, Bob


Allason, Rupert
Clelland, David


Allen, Graham
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Arbuthnot, James
Cohen, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Coleman, Donald


Armstrong, Hilary
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Baldry, Tony
Corbett, Robin


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Couchman, James


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Cox, Tom


Batiste, Spencer
Cran, James


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Critchley, Julian


Beckett, Margaret
Crowther, Stan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cryer, Bob


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cunningham, Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bidwell, Sydney
Dalyell, Tam


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Darling, Alistair


Blair, Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blunkett, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Body, Sir Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dewar, Donald


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dixon, Don


Boswell, Tim
Dobson, Frank


Bottomley, Peter
Doran, Frank


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Durant, Tony


Boyes, Roland
Dykes, Hugh


Bradley, Keith
Eadie, Alexander


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Eggar, Tim


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Emery, Sir Peter


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fatchett, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Buchan, Norman
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Buck, Sir Antony
Flannery, Martin


Buckley, George J.
Flynn, Paul


Budgen, Nicholas
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Caborn, Richard
Forman, Nigel


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fraser, John


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Galloway, George


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardiner, George


Carrington, Matthew
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Cartwright, John
George, Bruce


Chapman, Sydney
Gill, Christopher






Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Livingstone, Ken


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Livsey, Richard


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lord, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gordon, Mildred
McAllion, John


Gould, Bryan
McCartney, Ian


Gow, Ian
McCrindle, Robert


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Gregory, Conal
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
McKelvey, William


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maclean, David


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McLeish, Henry


Grist, Ian
Maclennan, Robert


Grocott, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Ground, Patrick
Madden, Max


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Madel, David


Hanley, Jeremy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hannam, John
Major, Rt Hon John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Maples, John


Harris, David
Marek, Dr John


Haselhurst, Alan
Marland, Paul


Hawkins, Christopher
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Haynes, Frank
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Martlew, Eric


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mates, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Maxton, John


Henderson, Doug
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Meale, Alan


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mellor, David


Hinchliffe, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Michael, Alun


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Holt, Richard
Miller, Sir Hal


Hood, Jimmy
Miscampbell, Norman


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Mitchell, Austin (G'r Grimsby)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Mitchell, Sir David


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Howells, Geraint
Morgan, Rhodri


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Morley, Elliot


Hoyle, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Moss, Malcolm


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Illsley, Eric
Mullin, Chris


Ingram, Adam
Neale, Gerrard


Jack, Michael
Nellist, Dave


Janner, Greville
Nelson, Anthony


Johnston, Sir Russell
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Patchett, Terry


Key, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Pike, Peter L.


Kirkwood, Archy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Knapman, Roger
Prescott, John


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Primarolo, Dawn


Knox, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Radice, Giles


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Raffan, Keith


Leadbitter, Ted
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rathbone, Tim


Leighton, Ron
Redmond, Martin


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lewis, Terry
Richardson, Jo


Litherland, Robert
Riddick, Graham





Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Robertson, George
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rogers, Allan
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Rooker, Jeff
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thurnham, Peter


Ruddock, Joan
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Ryder, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trotter, Neville


Salmond, Alex
Turner, Dennis


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sedgemore, Brian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sheerman, Barry
Walden, George


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walley, Joan


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Short, Clare
Warren, Kenneth


Sims, Roger
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Skinner, Dennis
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wheeler, Sir John


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wigley, Dafydd


Snape, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Soley, Clive
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Spearing, Nigel
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wilson, Brian


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winnick, David


Squire, Robin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Steinberg, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Stern, Michael
Wray, Jimmy


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stott, Roger
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Strang, Gavin
Tellers for the Noes:


Straw, Jack
Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)



Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed to the new clause: (b), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert `twenty-eighth'.—Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Dennis Canavan: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 141, Noes 382.

Division No. 170]
[11.31 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradley, Keith


Allen, Graham
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buchan, Norman


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Buck, Sir Antony


Barron, Kevin
Caborn, Richard


Beckett, Margaret
Callaghan, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cartwright, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clay, Bob


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Boateng, Paul
Cohen, Harry


Boyes, Roland
Coleman, Donald






Corbyn, Jeremy
Maxton, John


Cousins, Jim
Meacher, Michael


Cox, Tom
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cunningham, Dr John
Mitchell, Sir David


Darling, Alistair
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Morgan, Rhodri


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Dobson, Frank
Neale, Gerrard


Doran, Frank
Nellist, Dave


Eadie, Alexander
O'Neill, Martin


Eastham, Ken
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Patchett, Terry


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fatchett, Derek
Prescott, John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Radice, Giles


Flannery, Martin
Redmond, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Richardson, Jo


Foster, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Foulkes, George
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Fraser, John
Ruddock, Joan


Fyfe, Maria
Sedgemore, Brian


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


George, Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Short, Clare


Gordon, Mildred
Skinner, Dennis


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Gould, Bryan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Snape, Peter


Haynes, Frank
Soley, Clive


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Spearing, Nigel


Henderson, Doug
Steinberg, Gerry


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Stott, Roger


Howells, Geraint
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Strang, Gavin


Hoyle, Doug
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Thurnham, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Illsley, Eric
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Tredinnick, David


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Turner, Dennis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Viggers, Peter


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Walley, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Lewis, Terry
Wig Iey, Dafydd


Litherland, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Livingstone, Ken
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Winnick, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McAllion, John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


McCartney, Ian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McKelvey, William



McWilliam, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Madden, Max
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Ms. Dawn Primarolo.


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Battle, John


Alexander, Richard
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Beggs, Roy


Allason, Rupert
Beith, A. J.


Alton, David
Bell, Stuart


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Amos, Alan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arbuthnot, James
Benyon, W.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bermingham, Gerald


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ashby, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkins, Robert
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bottomley, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baldry, Tony
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Batiste, Spencer
Bowis, John





Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Galloway, George


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gardiner, George


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Browne, John (Winchester)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gorst, John


Buckley, George J.
Gow, Ian


Budgen, Nicholas
Graham, Thomas


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Gregory, Conal


Butler, Chris
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Grist, Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Grocott, Bruce


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carrington, Matthew
Hague, William


Cash, William
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Harris, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Haselhurst, Alan


Conway, Derek
Hawkins, Christopher


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayward, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Corbett, Robin
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cormack, Patrick
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cran, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Crowther, Stan
Hill, James


Cummings, John
Hinchliffe, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hind, Kenneth


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Dalyell, Tam
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Holt, Richard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Home Robertson, John


Day, Stephen
Hood, Jimmy


Devlin, Tim
Hordern, Sir Peter


Dewar, Donald
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Dicks, Terry
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Dixon, Don
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Douglas. Dick
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dover, Den
Hume, John


Dunn, Bob
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Hunter, Andrew


Durant, Tony
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Eggar, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Irving, Sir Charles


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Jack, Michael


Evennett, David
Janman, Tim


Fallon, Michael
Janner, Greville


Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Favell, Tony
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Fearn, Ronald
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Flynn, Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Fookes, Dame Janet
Kennedy, Charles


Forman, Nigel
Key, Robert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Kilfedder, James


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fox, Sir Marcus
Kirkwood, Archy


Freeman, Roger
Knapman, Roger


French, Douglas
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fry, Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Gale, Roger
Lambie, David






Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Parry, Robert


Lang, Ian
Patnick, Irvine


Latham, Michael
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Lawrence, Ivan
Patten, Rt Hon John


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Leadbitter, Ted
Pawsey, James


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Pike, Peter L.


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Lightbown, David
Portillo, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Price, Sir David


Livsey, Richard
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rathbone, Tim


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Lord, Michael
Reid, Dr John


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Rhodes James, Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


McCrea, Rev William
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


McCrindle, Robert
Robertson, George


Macdonald, Calum A.
Robinson, Geoffrey


McFall, John
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Roe, Mrs Marion


McGrady, Eddie
Rossi, Sir Hugh


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Rowlands, Ted


Maclennan, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McLoughlin, Patrick
Salmond, Alex


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


McNamara, Kevin
Shaw, David (Dover)


Madel, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Major, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Malins, Humfrey
Shelton, Sir William


Mallon, Seamus
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Mans, Keith
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marek, Dr John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marland, Paul
Sillars, Jim


Marlow, Tony
Sims, Roger


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mates, Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Maude, Hon Francis
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speed, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speller, Tony


Mellor, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Michael, Alun
Squire, Robin


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miller, Sir Hal
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mills, Iain
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Steen, Anthony


Moate, Roger
Stern, Michael


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stevens, Lewis


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Sumberg, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Summerson, Hugo


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Mudd, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thorne, Neil


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thornton, Malcolm


Norris, Steve
Tracey, Richard


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Trippier, David


O'Brien, William
Trotter, Neville


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Twinn, Dr Ian


Oppenheim, Phillip
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Page, Richard
Vaz, Keith


Paice, James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Paisley, Rev Ian
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William





Walden, George
Wilshire, David


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Winterton, Nicholas


Wallace, James
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Worthington, Tony


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wray, Jimmy


Warren, Kenneth
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, Bowen
Younger, Rt Hon George


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)



Wheeler, Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitney, Ray
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy and Mr. Toby Jessel.


Widdecombe, Ann



Wilkinson, John

Question accordingly negatived.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has a point of order.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. My colleague the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) asked me to nod him through during the Division that has just taken place. I took the trouble of checking with the Clerk, and the Clerk who was marking off the names on the register took the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Riverside, but there seemed to be some dispute with the Tellers as to whether my hon. Friend's vote had been recorded. I am hereby vouching for the fact that my hon. Friend, who suffered a car accident some time ago, is still suffering a disability and is incapable of continuously going through the Lobby tonight. I ask your guidance, Miss Boothroyd, on whether his vote was valid in the previous Division and whether it will be in subsequent Divisions.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Let me make the position clear to the House. Nodding through is not a rule of the House. It is usually done when an hon. Member has a medical problem, but it has nothing to do with the Chair. It is usually settled by the political parties concerned. In this case, it must be agreed by those who are organising the vote—that is, it has nothing whatever to do with the Clerks; it has to do with the Tellers. If they agree that an hon. Member can be nodded through, so be it. I hope that that makes the matter quite clear.

Amendment proposed to the new clause: (c), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'twentieth'.—[Mr.Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Commitee divided: Ayes 189, Noes 358.

Division No. 171]
[11.48 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alton, David
Benyon, W.


Amess, David
Bermingham, Gerald


Amos, Alan
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Ashby, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowis, John


Atkins, Robert
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brazier, Julian


Battle, John
Bright, Graham


Beggs, Roy
Burns, Simon


Beith, A. J.
Burt, Alistair


Bell, Stuart
Butcher, John


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Chris


Bendall, Vivian
Canavan, Dennis






Cash, William
McNamara, Kevin


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Malins, Humfrey


Chope, Christopher
Mallon, Seamus


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Mans, Keith


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Marlow, Tony


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Conway, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Maude, Hon Francis


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Cormack, Patrick
Mills, Iain


Cummings, John
Moate, Roger


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Monro, Sir Hector


Day, Stephen
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Devlin, Tim
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Moss, Malcolm


Dicks, Terry
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Douglas, Dick
Mudd, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Murphy, Paul


Dover, Den
Neubert, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Nicholls, Patrick


Evennett, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fallon, Michael
Norris, Steve


Faulds, Andrew
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Favell, Tony
O'Brien, William


Fearn, Ronald
Page, Richard


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Paice, James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Parry, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Freeman, Roger
Patten, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
Pawsey, James


Fry, Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gale, Roger
Porter, David (Waveney)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Portillo, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Price, Sir David


Gorst, John
Redwood, John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Reid, Dr John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Grylls, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hague, William
Rowlands, Ted


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hayes, Jerry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Shelton, Sir William


Hayward, Robert
Sillars, Jim


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hill, James
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


Hind, Kenneth
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Home Robertson, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Speed, Keith


Hume, John
Speller, Tony


Hunter, Andrew
Stanbrook, Ivor


Irvine, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Jack, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Janman, Tim
Sumberg, David


Jessel, Toby
Summerson, Hugo


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kilfedder, James
Thorne, Neil


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Knapman, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Trippier, David


Lambie, David
Vaz, Keith


Lang, Ian
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Latham, Michael
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Lawrence, Ivan
Waller, Gary


Lilley, Peter
Watts, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Whitney, Ray


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Ann


McAvoy, Thomas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


McCrea, Rev William
Winterton, Nicholas


Macdonald, Calum A.



McFall, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Mr. Edward Leigh and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.


McGrady, Eddie



McLoughlin, Patrick






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Aitken, Jonathan
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Alexander, Richard
Dewar, Donald


Allason, Rupert
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Dobson, Frank


Arbuthnot, James
Doran, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Hilary
Durant, Tony


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dykes, Hugh


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Eadie, Alexander


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Eastham, Ken


Baldry, Tony
Eggar, Tim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Batiste, Spencer
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fatchett, Derek


Beckett, Margaret
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Flannery, Martin


Bidwell, Sydney
Flynn, Paul


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Blair, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Blunkett, David
Foster, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Foulkes, George


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fraser, John


Boswell, Tim
Galloway, George


Bottomley, Peter
Gardiner, George


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Boyes, Roland
George, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Gill, Christopher


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Browne, John (Winchester)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gordon, Mildred


Buchan, Norman
Gould, Bryan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gow, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Buckley, George J.
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Budgen, Nicholas
Gregory, Conal


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Grist, Ian


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Grocott, Bruce


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cartwright, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Harris, David


Clay, Bob
Haselhurst, Alan


Clelland, David
Hawkins, Christopher


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Haynes, Frank


Cohen, Harry
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coleman, Donald
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Colvin, Michael
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Henderson, Doug


Cope, Rt Hon John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Corbett, Robin
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Couchman, James
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cox, Tom
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cran, James
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Critchley, Julian
Holt, Richard


Crowther, Stan
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, Bob
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Dalyell, Tarn
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Darling, Alistair
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howells, Geraint


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)






Hoyle, Doug
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Neale, Gerrard


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Nellist, Dave


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Nelson, Anthony


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Illsley, Eric
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Ingram, Adam
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Robert
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Janner, Greville
Oppenheim, Phillip


Johnston, Sir Russell
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Patchett, Terry


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Patnick, Irvine


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pike, Peter L.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Key, Robert
Prescott, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kirkwood, Archy
Radice, Giles


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Raffan, Keith


Knox, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rathbone, Tim


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Redmond, Martin


Leadbitter, Ted
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lee, John (Pendle)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Leighton, Ron
Rhodes James, Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Richardson, Jo


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Riddick, Graham


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lewis, Terry
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Litherland, Robert
Robertson, George


Livingstone, Ken
Robinson, Geoffrey


Livsey, Richard
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Rooker, Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lord, Michael
Ruddock, Joan


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Ryder, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sackville, Hon Tom


McAllion, John
Salmond, Alex


McCartney, Ian
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sheerman, Barry


McKelvey, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maclean, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


McLeish, Henry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maclennan, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McWilliam, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Madden, Max
Short, Clare


Madel, David
Sims, Roger


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Major, Rt Hon John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maples, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Marland, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Snape, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Mates, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Maxton, John
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Meacher, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Meale, Alan
Squire, Robin


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Michael, Alun
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steen, Anthony


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Sir Hal
Stern, Michael


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David
Strang, Gavin


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Straw, Jack


Moore, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Temple-Morris, Peter





Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Wheeler, Sir John


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Tredinnick, David
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Trotter, Neville
Wilshire, David


Turner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Winnick, David


Viggers, Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wolfson, Mark


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Walley, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Ward, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Warren, Kenneth



Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen
Mrs. Teresa Gorman and Mrs. Maria Fyfe.


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)



Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed to the new clause: (d), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert `twenty-sixth'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Commitee divided: Ayes 156, Noes 372.

Division No. 172]
[12.03 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Flannery, Martin


Allen, Graham
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Foulkes, George


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fraser, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fyfe, Maria


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Barron, Kevin
George, Bruce


Beckett, Margaret
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gordon, Mildred


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bidwell, Sydney
Gould, Bryan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boateng, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boyes, Roland
Haynes, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Howells, Geraint


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Buchan, Norman
Hoyle, Doug


Buck, Sir Antony
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Caborn, Richard
Illsley, Eric


Callaghan, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Cartwright, John
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clay, Bob
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cohen, Harry
Leighton, Ron


Coleman, Donald
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Cox, Tom
Livingstone, Ken


Cran, James
Livsey, Richard


Cryer, Bob
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Cunningham, Dr John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Darling, Alistair
McAllion, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dobson, Frank
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Doran, Frank
McKelvey, William


Eadie, Alexander
McWilliam, John


Eastham, Ken
Madden, Max


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Maples, John


Fatchett, Derek
Marland, Paul


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)






Maxton, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Meale, Alan
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Snape, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Sir David
Spearing, Nigel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Rhodri
Stott, Roger


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mowlam, Marjorie
Strang, Gavin


Neale, Gerrard
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Nellist, Dave
Thurnham, Peter


O'Neill, Martin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Patchett, Terry
Tredinnick, David


Patnick, Irvine
Turner, Dennis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Viggers, Peter


Prescott, John
Walley, Joan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Radice, Giles
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Redmond, Martin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wigley, Dafydd


Rhodes James, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ruddock, Joan
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wray, Jimmy


Sedgemore, Brian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Short, Clare
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Ms. Dawn Primarolo.


Skinner, Dennis





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alexander, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buckley, George J.


Allason, Rupert
Budgen, Nicholas


Alton, David
Burns, Simon


Amos, Alan
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butcher, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butler, Chris


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Aspinwall, Jack
Canavan, Dennis


Atkins, Robert
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carrington, Matthew


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Chapman, Sydney


Battle, John
Chope, Christopher


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Beggs, Roy
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Conway, Derek


Benyon, W.
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cope, Rt Hon John


Body, Sir Richard
Corbett, Robin


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cormack, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Boswell, Tim
Crowther, Stan


Bottomley, Peter
Cummings, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dalyell, Tarn


Bowis, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Day, Stephen


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Devlin, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Dewar, Donald


Bright, Graham
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Dicks, Terry





Dixon, Don
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Douglas, Dick
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Dover, Den
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dunn, Bob
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Hume, John


Durant, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Dykes, Hugh
Irvine, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Jack, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Janman, Tim


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Janner, Greville


Evennett, David
Jessel, Toby


Fallon, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Favell, Tony
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Fearn, Ronald
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Flynn, Paul
Kennedy, Charles


Forman, Nigel
Key, Robert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Kilfedder, James


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fox, Sir Marcus
Kirkwood, Archy


Freeman, Roger
Knapman, Roger


French, Douglas
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fry, Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Gale, Roger
Lambie, David


Galloway, George
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Gardiner, George
Latham, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lawrence, Ivan


Gill, Christopher
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Leadbitter, Ted


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Lee, John (Pendle)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gorst, John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Gow, Ian
Lightbown, David


Graham, Thomas
Lilley, Peter


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Gregory, Conal
Lord, Michael


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McAvoy, Thomas


Grist, Ian
McCrea, Rev William


Grocott, Bruce
McCrindle, Robert


Ground, Patrick
Macdonald, Calum A.


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
McFall, John


Hague, William
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
McGrady, Eddie


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hanley, Jeremy
Maclennan, Robert


Hannam, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hardy, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
McNamara, Kevin


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Madel, David


Harris, David
Major, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Hawkins, Christopher
Mallon, Seamus


Hayes, Jerry
Mans, Keith


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Marek, Dr John


Hayward, Robert
Marlow, Tony


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Henderson, Doug
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Martlew, Eric


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mates, Michael


Hill, James
Maude, Hon Francis


Hinchliffe, David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hind, Kenneth
Mellor, David


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Michael, Alun


Holt, Richard
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Home Robertson, John
Miller, Sir Hal


Hood, Jimmy
Mills, Iain


Hordern, Sir Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Moate, Roger






Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S,)


Monro, Sir Hector
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Speed, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Speller, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Squire, Robin


Moss, Malcolm
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Murphy, Paul
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Nelson, Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Neubert, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Summerson, Hugo


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


O'Brien, William
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, Richard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Paice, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Paisley, Rev Ian
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Parry, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Thorne, Neil


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Tracey, Richard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trippier, David


Pike, Peter L.
Trotter, Neville


Porter, David (Waveney)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Portillo, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Price, Sir David
Vaz, Keith


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rathbone, Tim
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Redwood, John
Walden, George


Reid, Dr John
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wallace, James


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Waller, Gary


Robertson, George
Ward, John


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Warren, Kenneth


Roe, Mrs Marion
Watts, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wells, Bowen


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wheeler, Sir John


Salmond, Alex
Whitney, Ray


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, Sir William
Wolfson, Mark


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Worthington, Tony


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Yeo, Tim


Sillars, Jim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger
Younger, Rt Hon George


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. David Amess.


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed to the new clause: (e), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert `twenty-second'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Commitee divided: Ayes 255, Noes 301.

Division No.173]
[12.17 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Alton, David
Aspinwall, Jack


Amos, Alan
Atkins, Robert


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Baldry, Tony


Ashby, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)





Batiste, Spencer
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Battle, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hannam, John


Beggs, Roy
Hardy, Peter


Beith, A. J.
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bell, Stuart
Harg reaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bellingham, Henry
Harris, David


Bendall, Vivian
Hayes, Jerry


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Benyon, W.
Hayward, Robert


Bermingham, Gerald
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hill, James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holt, Richard


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Home Robertson, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hume, John


Brazier, Julian
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bright, Graham
Hunter, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Burns, Simon
Irvine, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Jack, Michael


Butcher, John
Janman, Tim


Butler, Chris
Jessel, Toby


Butterfill, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Carrington, Matthew
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cash, William
Kennedy, Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Chapman, Sydney
Kirkhope, Timothy


Chope, Christopher
Knapman, Roger


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lambie, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Latham, Michael


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lawrence, Ivan


Conway, Derek
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lightbown, David


Cormack, Patrick
Lilley, Peter


Cummings, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lord, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Day, Stephen
McAvoy, Thomas


Devlin, Tim
McCrea, Rev William


Dickens, Geoffrey
Macdonald, Calum A.


Dicks, Terry
McFall, John


Douglas, Dick
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McGrady, Eddie


Dover, Den
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dunn, Bob
Maclean, David


Durant, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Eggar, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Evennett, David
McNamara, Kevin


Fallon, Michael
Major, Rt Hon John


Faulds, Andrew
Malins, Humfrey


Favell, Tony
Mallon, Seamus


Fearn, Ronald
Mans, Keith


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marlow, Tony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Freeman, Roger
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


French, Douglas
Mates, Michael


Fry, Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Gale, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mellor, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Miller, Sir Hal


Gorst, John
Mills, Iain


Gow, Ian
Moate, Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Gregory, Conal
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm






Moynihan, Hon Colin
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Murphy, Paul
Speed, Keith


Neubert, Michael
Speller, Tony


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Nicholls, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stevens, Lewis


Norris, Steve
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


O'Brien, William
Sumberg, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Summerson, Hugo


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Page, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Paice, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Paisley, Rev Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Parry, Robert
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thorne, Neil


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Tracey, Richard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trippier, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Portillo, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Price, Sir David
Vaz, Keith


Redwood, John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Reid, Dr John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wallace, James


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waller, Gary


Rowlands, Ted
Ward, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Widdecombe, Ann


Shelton, Sir William
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Worthington, Tony


Sillars, Jim
Yeo, Tim


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. A.E. P. Duffy and Mr. David Amess


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)



Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Aitken, Jonathan
Buchan, Norman


Alexander, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Allason, Rupert
Buck, Sir Antony


Allen, Graham
Buckley, George J.


Arbuthnot, James
Caborn, Richard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Callaghan, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Barron, Kevin
Cartwright, John


Beckett, Margaret
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, A F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clay, Bob


Bidwell, Sydney
Clelland, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Blair, Tony
Cohen, Harry


Blunkett, David
Coleman, Donald


Boateng, Paul
Colvin, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Boswell, Tim
Corbett, Robin


Bottomley, Peter
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Couchman, James


Boyes, Roland
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Cox, Tom


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cran, James


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Critchley, Julian


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Crowther, Stan


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Cryer, Bob


Browne, John (Winchester)
Cunningham, Dr John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Dalyell, Tam





Darling, Alistair
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dewar, Donald
Key, Robert


Dixon, Don
Kilfedder, James


Dobson, Frank
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Doran, Frank
Kirkwood, Archy


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Eadie, Alexander
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Eastham, Ken
Leadbitter, Ted


Emery, Sir Peter
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Leighton, Ron


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Fatchett, Derek
Lewis, Terry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Litherland, Robert


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Livingstone, Ken


Flannery, Martin
Livsey, Richard


Flynn, Paul
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Foster, Derek
McAllion, John


Foulkes, George
McCartney, Ian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McCrindle, Robert


Fraser, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Fyfe, Maria
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gardiner, George
McKelvey, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
McLeish, Henry


George, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert


Gill, Christopher
McWilliam, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Madden, Max


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Madel, David


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maples, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Marek, Dr John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gordon, Mildred
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gould, Bryan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meacher, Michael


Grist, Ian
Meale, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Michael, Alun


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Miscampbell, Norman


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hawkins, Christopher
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Haynes, Frank
Mitchell, Sir David


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morgan, Rhodri


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morley, Elliot


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hinchliffe, David
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Neale, Gerrard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nellist, Dave


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Nelson, Anthony


Hood, Jimmy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
O'Neill, Martin


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Patchett, Terry


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patnick, Irvine


Howells, Geraint
Pike, Peter L.


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Doug
Prescott, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Radice, Giles


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Raffan, Keith


Illsley, Eric
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Ingram, Adam
Rathbone, Tim


Janner, Greville
Redmond, Martin


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn






Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rhodes James, Robert
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Richardson, Jo
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Riddick, Graham
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Robertson, George
Thurnham, Peter


Robinson, Geoffrey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rogers, Allan
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rooker, Jeff
Tredinnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Trotter, Neville


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Dennis


Ryder, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walden, George


Salmond, Alex
Walley, Joan


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sedgemore, Brian
Warren, Kenneth


Sheerman, Barry
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wheeler, Sir John


Short, Clare
Wiggin, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Wilshire, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilson, Brian


Snape, Peter
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Spearing, Nigel
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Squire, Robin
Wray, Jimmy


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Steinberg, Gerry
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stern, Michael



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Strang, Gavin
Mrs. Teresa Gorman and Ms. Dawn Primarolo.


Straw, Jack

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed to the new clause:(f), in line 6, at end insert—
'(aa) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;or'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put,That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 337, Noes 146.

Division No. 174]
[12.30 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Allason, Rupert
Boyes, Roland


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith


Arbuthnot, James
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashby, David
Browne, John (Winchester)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Buchan, Norman


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Buck, Sir Antony


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buckley, George J.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Butler, Chris


Barron, Kevin
Caborn, Richard


Battle, John
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beggs, Roy
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bermingham, Gerald
Carrington, Matthew


Bidwell, Sydney
Cartwright, John


Blair, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Blunkett, David
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Boateng, Paul
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Body, Sir Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)





Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clay, Bob
Hawkins, Christopher


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Haynes, Frank


Cohen, Harry
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coleman, Donald
Henderson, Doug


Colvin, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hinchliffe, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Corbett, Robin
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cox, Tom
Howells, Geraint


Cran, James
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Crowther, Stan
Hoyle, Doug


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Alistair
Ingram, Adam


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Irvine, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dixon, Don
Key, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Doran, Frank
Kirkwood, Archy


Durant, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Eadie, Alexander
Lambie, David


Eastham, Ken
Lawrence, Ivan


Emery, Sir Peter
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Leighton, Ron


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Fatchett, Derek
Lewis, Terry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Litherland, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Livingstone, Ken


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Livsey, Richard


Flannery, Martin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Flynn, Paul
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Foster, Derek
McAllion, John


Foulkes, George
McCartney, Ian


Fraser, John
McCrindle, Robert


French, Douglas
Macdonald, Calum A.


Fry, Peter
McFall, John


Fyfe, Maria
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Galloway, George
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gardiner, George
McKelvey, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Maclean, David


George, Bruce
McLeish, Henry


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McWilliam, John


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Madden, Max


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Madel, David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Goodlad, Alastair
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gordon, Mildred
Marek, Dr John


Gould, Bryan
Marland, Paul


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Martlew, Eric


Grist, Ian
Maxton, John


Grocott, Bruce
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hague, William
Meacher, Michael


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Meale, Alan


Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Michael, Alun


Hannam, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hardy, Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Miscampbell, Norman






Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Mitchell, Sir David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Rhodri
Soley, Clive


Morley, Elliot
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Squire, Robin


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Steen, Anthony


Mowlam, Marjorie
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stern, Michael


Neale, Gerrard
Stott, Roger


Nellist, Dave
Strang, Gavin


Nelson, Anthony
Straw, Jack


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Summerson, Hugo


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


O'Brien, William
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Patchett, Terry
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Patnick, Irvine
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pike, Peter L.
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tredinnick, David


Prescott, John
Turner, Dennis


Primarolo, Dawn
Twinn, Dr Ian


Quin, Ms Joyce
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Radice, Giles
Viggers, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Rathbone, Tim
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Redmond, Martin
Wallace, James


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Walley, Joan


Reid, Dr John
Ward, John


Richardson, Jo
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Riddick, Graham
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Robertson, George
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rooker, Jeff
Wheeler, Sir John


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Ruddock, Joan
Wigley, Dafydd


Ryder, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Salmond, Alex
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilson, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wood, Timothy


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Worthington, Tony


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Short, Clare
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sims, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)



Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)





NOES>


Alton, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amess, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Aspinwall, Jack
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Burns, Simon


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Burt, Alistair


Beith, A. J.
Butcher, John


Bell, Stuart
Canavan, Dennis


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chope, Christopher


Benyon, W.
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bottomley, Peter
Conway, Derek





Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
McGrady, Eddie


Cormack, Patrick
Maclennan, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
McNamara, Kevin


Dickens, Geoffrey
Malins, Humfrey


Dicks, Terry
Mallon, Seamus


Douglas, Dick
Mans, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dover, Den
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maude, Hon Francis


Dunn, Bob
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Evennett, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fallon, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Fearn, Ronald
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Murphy, Paul


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Neubert, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Nicholls, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gale, Roger
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Paice, James


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gow, Ian
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Gregory, Conal
Patten, Rt Hon John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Pawsey, James


Ground, Patrick
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Redwood, John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Harris, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rowlands, Ted


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hill, James
Shelton, Sir William


Home Robertson, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Speed, Keith


Hume, John
Speller, Tony


Hunter, Andrew
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stevens, Lewis


Jack, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Janman, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jessel, Toby
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Thorne, Neil


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Trippier, David


Kennedy, Charles
Trotter, Neville


Kilfedder, James
Walden, George


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Watts, John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Knapman, Roger
Whitney, Ray


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Widdecombe, Ann


Latham, Michael
Wilshire, David


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Winterton, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)



McAvoy, Thomas
Tellers for the Noes:


McCrea, Rev William
Mr. Julian Brazier and Mr. Alan Amos.


Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Consequently amendment (g) falls.

Amendment proposed to the new clause: (x), in line 8, leave out from 'woman,' to 'or'.—[ Ms. Richardson.]

Question put and negatived.

Amendment proposed to the new clause: (i), in line 9, leave out:—
`that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-eighth week and'.—[ Ms. Richardson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 277, Noes 201.

Division No. 175]
[12.48 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fatchett, Derek


Alexander, Richard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Allason, Rupert
Flannery, Martin


Allen, Graham
Flynn, Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel


Armstrong, Hilary
Foster
, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foulkes, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fraser, John


Barron, Kevin
Fyfe, Maria


Batiste, Spencer
Gardiner, George


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Beckett, Margaret
George, Bruce


Bell, Stuart
Gill, Christopher


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bidwell, Sydney
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blair, Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gordon, Mildred


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gould, Bryan


Boyes, Roland
Graham, Thomas


Bradley, Keith
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grist, Ian


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grocott, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Hague, William


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buck, Sir Antony
Hanley, Jeremy


Butler, Chris
Hannam, John


Caborn, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Jim
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Christopher


Cartwright, John
Haynes, Frank


Chapman, Sydney
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Doug


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clay, Bob
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cohen, Harry
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Coleman, Donald
Hood, Jimmy


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Geraint


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Cran, James
Ingram, Adam


Cryer, Bob
Irvine, Michael


Cummings, John
Jack, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Key, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Knox, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lambie, David


Dixon, Don
Leighton, Ron


Dobson, Frank
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Doran, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Durant, Tony
Lewis, Terry


Eadie, Alexander
Lightbown, David


Eastham, Ken
Litherland, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
Livingstone, Ken


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McAllion, John





McCartney, Ian
Rogers, Allan


McCrindle, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Ruddock, Joan


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Ryder, Richard


McKelvey, William
Sackville, Hon Tom


Maclean, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


McLeish, Henry
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madel, David
Shelton, Sir William


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maples, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marek, Dr John
Short, Clare


Marland, Paul
Sims, Roger


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Maxton, John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Meale, Alan
Snape, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Squire, Robin


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mills, Iain
Steen, Anthony


Miscampbell, Norman
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David
Stott, Roger


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri
Straw, Jack


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mullin, Chris
Tredinnick, David


Neale, Gerrard
Turner, Dennis


Nellist, Dave
Viggers, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walley, Joan


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Ward, John


O'Neill, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Patchett, Terry
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Patnick, Irvine
Wells, Bowen


Pike, Peter L.
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wheeler, Sir John


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wiggin, Jerry


Prescott, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Primarolo, Dawn
Wilkinson, John


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Raffan, Keith
Winnick, David


Rathbone, Tim
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Redmond, Martin
Wolfson, Mark


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Worthington, Tony


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Richardson, Jo



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mrs. Teresa Gorman and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.


Robertson, George



Robinson, Geoffrey





NOES


Alton, David
Beith, A. J.


Amess, David
Bellingham, Henry


Amos, Alan
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Benyon, W.


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashby, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blunkett, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Bottomley, Peter


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowis, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Battle, John
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Beggs, Roy
Brazier, Julian






Bright, Graham
Knapman, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg S Cl't's)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Buckley, George J.
Latham, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan


Burns, Simon
Leadbitter, Ted


Burt, Alistair
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Butcher, John
Livsey, Richard


Butterfill, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Canavan, Dennis
McAvoy, Thomas


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McCrea, Rev William


Cash, William
Macdonald, Calum A.


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
McFall, John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
McGrady, Eddie


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Maclennan, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Clelland, David
McNamara, Kevin


Conway, Derek
Malins, Humfrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mallon, Seamus


Cope, Rt Hon John
Mans, Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Marlow, Tony


Crowther, Stan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Day, Stephen
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Devlin, Tim
Maude, Hon Francis


Dicks, Terry
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Douglas, Dick
Mellor, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dover, Den
Moate, Roger


Duffy, A. E. P.
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dunn, Bob
Monro, Sir Hector


Evennett, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fallon, Michael
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Favell, Tony
Murphy, Paul


Fearn, Ronald
Neubert, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Nicholls, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fox, Sir Marcus
O'Brien, William


Freeman, Roger
Paice, James


French, Douglas
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fry, Peter
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Gale, Roger
Patten, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pawsey, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Ground, Patrick
Redwood, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Reid, Dr John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Harris, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Rowlands, Ted


Hayward, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Salmond, Alex


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hill, James
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hind, Kenneth
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Holt, Richard
Sillars, Jim


Home Robertson, John
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Speed, Keith


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Speller, Tony


Hume, John
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hunter, Andrew
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Janman, Tim
Stevens, Lewis


Jessel, Toby
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Summerson, Hugo


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Thorne, Neil


Kennedy, Charles
Thornton, Malcolm


Kilfedder, James
Tracey, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Trippier, David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Kirkwood, Archy
Twinn, Dr Ian





Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Winterton, Nicholas


Wallace, James
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)



Whitney, Ray
Tellers for the Noes:


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Nicholas Bennett and Mr. Edward Leigh.


Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann

Question accordingly agreed to.

1 am

The Chairman of Ways and Means: Amendment (j) therefore falls. We now come to amendment (s). Not moved.
We therefore turn to amendment (h), which I must tell the House is a minor consequential amendment to an earlier amendment.

Amendments made to the proposed new clause: (h), in line 11, at end insert—
`( ) In section 1(2) of that Act, after "(a)" there is inserted "or (aa)"'.
(k), in line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 16.—[ Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

The Chairman of Ways and Means: The next amendments consequently fall, up to amendment (q).

Amendment proposed to the new clause: (q), in line 16, at end insert—
`(3) For section 5(1) of that Act (effect on Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929) there is substituted—
(1) No offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 308, Noes 149.

Division No. 176]
[1.02 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Alexander, Richard
Buchan, Norman


Allason, Rupert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Allen, Graham
Buck, Sir Antony


Arbuthnot, James
Butler, Chris


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Butterfill, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Caborn, Richard


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Callaghan, Jim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley}


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Barron, Kevin
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beckett, Margaret
Carrington, Matthew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cartwright, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Chapman, Sydney


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blair, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Blunkett, David
Clay, Bob


Boateng, Paul
Clelland, David


Body, Sir Richard
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cohen, Harry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coleman, Donald


Boswell, Tim
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Boyes, Roland
Corbett, Robin


Bradley, Keith
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Couchman, James


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Cousins, Jim


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Cox, Tom


Browne, John (Winchester)
Cran, James


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Crowther, Stan






Cryer, Bob
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cunningham, Dr John
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Davies, Q. (Stamfd &amp; Spald'g)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Key, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dewar, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Don
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dobson, Frank
Knox, David


Doran, Frank
Lambie, David


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Eadie, Alexander
Leadbitter, Ted


Eastham, Ken
Lee, John (Pendle)


Emery, Sir Peter
Leighton, Ron


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Lewis, Terry


Fatchett, Derek
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Litherland, Robert


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Livingstone, Ken


Flannery, Martin
Livsey, Richard


Flynn, Paul
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Foster, Derek
McAllion, John


Foulkes, George
McCartney, Ian


Fraser, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gardiner, George
McKelvey, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Maclean, David


George, Bruce
McLeish, Henry


Gill, Christopher
Maclennan, Robert


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
McWilliam, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Madden, Max


Golding, Mrs Llin
Madel, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gordon, Mildred
Marek, Dr John


Gould, Bryan
Marland, Paul


Graham, Thomas
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grist, Ian
Meacher, Michael


Grocott, Bruce
Meale, Alan


Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Michael, Alun


Hanley, Jeremy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hannam, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Hardy, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Sir David


Hawkins, Christopher
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Haynes, Frank
Morgan, Rhodri


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Morley, Elliot


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Henderson, Doug
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Moss, Malcolm


Hinchliffe, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Mullin, Chris


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Neale, Gerrard


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Nellist, Dave


Hood, Jimmy
Nelson, Anthony


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
O'Neill, Martin


Howells, Geraint
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Page, Richard


Hoyle, Doug
Paice, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Patchett, Terry


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Patnick, Irvine


Illsley, Eric
Pike, Peter L.


Ingram, Adam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jack, Michael
Prescott, John





Primarolo, Dawn
Stern, Michael


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Strang, Gavin


Rattan, Keith
Straw, Jack


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Sumberg, David


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Redmond, Martin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Richardson, Jo
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Riddick, Graham
Thurnham, Peter


Robertson, George
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rogers, Allan
Tredinnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Trotter, Neville


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis


Ruddock, Joan
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ryder, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walley, Joan


Salmond, Alex
Ward, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Bowen


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Short, Clare
Wigley, Dafydd


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Winnick, David


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wolfson, Mark


Snape, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Soley, Clive
Worthington, Tony


Spearing, Nigel
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steen, Anthony
Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.


Steinberg, Gerry





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Alton, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cormack, Patrick


Amos, Alan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Devlin, Tim


Ashby, David
Dicks, Terry


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Den


Atkins, Robert
Duffy, A. E. P.


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evennett, David


Battle, John
Fallon, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Favell, Tony


Beith, A. J.
Fearn, Ronald


Bell, Stuart
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bendall, Vivian
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Benyon, W.
Freeman, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Fry, Peter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Gow, Ian


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gregory, Conal


Budgen, Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Canavan, Dennis
Harris, David


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hill, James


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Holt, Richard


Conway, Derek
Home Robertson, John






Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hume, John
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irvine, Michael
Redwood, John


Janman, Tim
Reid, Dr John


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kennedy, Charles
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kilfedder, James
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shelton, Sir William


Latham, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McCrea, Rev William
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Speed, Keith


McFall, John
Speller, Tony


McGrady, Eddie
Stanbrook, Ivor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


McNamara, Kevin
Summerson, Hugo


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Mallon, Seamus
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mans, Keith
Thorne, Neil


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thornton, Malcolm


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Trippier, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Roger
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Monro, Sir Hector
Wallace, James


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Watts, John


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Whitney, Ray


Murphy, Paul
Widdecombe, Ann


Neubert, Michael
Wilshire, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Winterton, Nicholas


Norris, Steve



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Nicholas Bennett and Mr. Edward Leigh.


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: Amendment (r)? Not moved.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, be added to the Bill—:

The Committee divided: Ayes 335, Noes 129.

Division No. 177]
[1.17 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bottomley, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Allason, Rupert
Boyes, Roland


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith


Arbuthnot, James
Bright, Graham


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Buchan, Norman


Barron, Kevin
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Batiste, Spencer
Buck, Sir Antony


Beckett, Margaret
Buckley, George J.


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Chris


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Caborn, Richard


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Callaghan, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Blair, Tony
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Blunkett, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Boateng, Paul
Carrington, Matthew


Body, Sir Richard
Cartwright, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Boswell, Tim
Clark. Dr David (S Shields)





Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clay, Bob
Hawkins, Christopher


Clelland, David
Haynes, Frank


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hayward, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coleman, Donald
Henderson, Doug


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th m)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbett, Robin
Hood, Jimmy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cox, Tom
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Howells, Geraint


Crowther, Stan
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cryer, Bob
Hoyle, Doug


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dalyell, Tarn
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Darling, Alistair
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Ingram, Adam


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Irvine, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Jack, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dixon, Don
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Durant, Tony
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eadie, Alexander
Key, Robert


Eastham, Ken
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Emery, Sir Peter
Kirkwood, Archy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Knox, David


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Lambie, David


Fatchett, Derek
Leadbitter, Ted


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Leighton, Ron


Flannery, Martin
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Flynn, Paul
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lewis, Terry


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Foster, Derek
Litherland, Robert


Foulkes, George
Livingstone, Ken


Fox, Sir Marcus
Livsey, Richard


Fraser, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fyfe, Maria
Lord, Michael


Gale, Roger
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gardiner, George
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
McAllion, John


George, Bruce
McCartney, Ian


Gill, Christopher
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
McKelvey, William


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maclean, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McLeish, Henry


Goodlad, Alastair
Maclennan, Robert


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McWilliam, John


Gordon, Mildred
Madden, Max


Gould, Bryan
Madel, David


Graham, Thomas
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Marek, Dr John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marland, Paul


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grist, Ian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grocott, Bruce
Martlew, Eric


Ground, Patrick
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maxton, John


Hanley, Jeremy
Meacher, Michael


Hannam, John
Meale, Alan


Hardy, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Michael, Alun


Harman, Ms Harriet
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)






Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mills, Iain
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Morley, Elliot
Squire, Robin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Steen, Anthony


Moss, Malcolm
Steinberg, Gerry


Mowlam, Marjorie
Stern, Michael


Mullin, Chris
Stott, Roger


Neale, Gerrard
Strang, Gavin


Nellist, Dave
Straw, Jack


Nelson, Anthony
Summerson, Hugo


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Page, Richard
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Paice, James
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Patchett, Terry
Thurnham, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Pike, Peter L.
Tracey, Richard


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tredinnick, David


Prescott, John
Trotter, Neville


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dennis


Quin, Ms Joyce
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Radice, Giles
Viggers, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Walden, George


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rathbone, Tim
Walley, Joan


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Ward, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Richardson, Jo
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Warren, Kenneth


Robertson, George
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rooker, Jeff
Wheeler, Sir John


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Ruddock, Joan
Wigley, Dafydd


Ryder, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Salmond, Alex
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wilshire, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilson, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wood, Timothy


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Worthington, Tony


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Short, Clare
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sims, Roger
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)





NOES


Alton, David
Brazier, Julian


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Amos, Alan
Butcher, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravosham)
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Canavan, Dennis


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cash, William


Aspinwall, Jack
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkins, Robert
Chope, Christopher


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Bell, Stuart
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bendall, Vivian
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benyon, W.
Conway, Derek


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Cummings, John


Bowis, John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Devlin, Tim





Dicks, Terry
Mallon, Seamus


Dover, Den
Mans, Keith


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dunn, Bob
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Evennett, David
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fallon, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, Sir David


Fearn, Ronald
Moate, Roger


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Monro, Sir Hector


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


French, Douglas
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Fry, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neubert, Michael


Gow, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gregory, Conal
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hague, William
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pawsey, James


Hargreaves. Ken (Hyndburn)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hayes, Jerry
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hill, James
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hind, Kenneth
Rowlands, Ted


Holt, Richard
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Home Robertson, John
Shelton, Sir William


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hume, John
Speed, Keith


Hunter, Andrew
Speller, Tony


Janman, Tim
Stevens, Lewis


Jessel, Toby
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Kennedy, Charles
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kilfedder, James
Thorne, Neil


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thornton, Malcolm


Kirkhope, Timothy
Trippier, David


Knapman, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Wallace, James


Latham, Michael
Waller, Gary


Lawrence, Ivan
Watts, John


Lightbown, David
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Whitney, Ray


McAvoy, Thomas
Widdecombe, Ann


Macdonald, Calum A.
Winterton, Mrs Ann


McFall, John
Winterton, Nicholas


McGrady, Eddie



McLoughlin, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Nicholas Bennett and Mr. Edward Leigh.


Malins, Humfrey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clause 11, schedule 2 and new clause 4, as amended, reported.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker]

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Human Embryo

Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the staff, pupils and friends of St. Patrick's high school, Ballymena. It contains 511 signatures. The prayer is as follows:
The humble petition of the staff, pupils and friends of St. Patrick's school, Ballymena showeth that we affirm that the newly-fertilised human embryo is a real living human being.
Therefore, we welcome the statement in the Warnock report that 'the status of the embryo is a matter of fundamental principle which should be enshrined in legislation', and its recommendation that the embryo of the human species should be afforded protection by law.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which (a) forbids any procedure that involves purchase or sale of


human embryos, the discarding or freezing of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue, or as subjects for research or experiment, unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned; and (b) forbids all forms of trans-species fertilisation.
Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is a petition in similar terms to that presented by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). It is from the members and friends of the Grimsby and Cleethorpes Life Group. It reads:
The humble petition of the members and friends of the Grimsby and Cleethorpes Life Group affirm that the newly-fertilised human embryo is a real, living human being. Therefore, we welcome the statement in the report of the committee of inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology, the Warnock report, that 'the status of the embryo is a matter of fundamental principle which should be enshrined in legislation', and its recommendation that the embryo of the human species should be afforded protection in law.
Therefore, we oppose all such practices as are recommended in the report which discriminate against the embryo or violate his or her dignity and right to life.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which (a) forbids any procedure that involves purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding or freezing of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment, unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned; and (b) forbids all forms of trans-species fertilisation, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
That is signed by Michael R. D. Reeves of 6 Lyndhurst avenue, Grimsby, and by 493 other signatories from Grimsby.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Fire Service (Gosport)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Nicholas Baker.)

Mr. Peter Viggers: Earlier this evening I think that we all felt that it might be 4 am before I started this brief Adjournment debate, which I am delighted to have been allocated, so we are all pleased that it is only 1.34 am, which is comparatively early.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Hear, hear.

Mr. Viggers: I note that this early start is appreciated by my right hon. Friend.
It is an entirely appropriate time because the main thrust of my speech concerns the manning of Gosport fire station on a 24-hour basis. Most of the good citizens of Gosport are safely asleep, knowing that the fire station has staff on 24-hour duty who will turn out to protect them from fire in the town.
My debate is about the guidelines for fire service cover. I am especially concerned about Gosport fire station, where 24-hour cover is under threat. The background is that local authorities—the fire authorities—have to provide cover under Home Office guidelines, and it is on that basis that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is good enough to reply to the debate. The guidelines are revised from time to time, and in 1981 the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales set up a joint committee on standards of fire cover, which reported in May 1986.
Under those principles there are rules on standards of training and there are grading definitions of fire risk with time limits applicable in each case related to each type of fire risk. It may be helpful if I refer briefly to them. The categories are A, B, C and D. Category A, the highest risk, covers
the largest cities and towns and include main shopping and business centres and concentrated areas of theatres, cinemas, clubs or high-risk industrial and commercial property.
For areas in that category, the Home Office expects three pumps to attend a fire. The first pump must attend in five minutes, the second in a further five and the third in eight.
Category B, which is slightly lower, comprises
built-up areas of large cities and towns not deemed to be in Category A … Other areas likely to be classified at Category B are large holiday resorts, industrial or training estates and concentrations of older multi-storey property.
The Home Office guideline is that two pumps should attend in five and eight minutes respectively.
Category C applies
to the suburbs of larger towns and built-up areas of smaller towns. The types of property usually included are residential areas and industrial or commercial areas where there are few higher-risk properties.
The Home Office specifies one pump in 10 minutes.
Category D is principally rural, and the Home Office specifies one pump in 20 minutes. Those are the general gradings of fire risk categories.
Applying those definitions, Hampshire fire brigade carried out a manning review, which was published in 1988. The review recommended that Gosport fire station, currently manned 24 hours a day, seven days a week on a shift basis, could safely be downgraded to a day-manned station. That means that it would be manned from 9 am to 6 pm five days a week and on Saturday morning. Outside


those hours, fire cover would be provided by fire fighters on call from their homes, adding four or five minutes to every call out of the fire brigade.
The proposal was controversial and strongly opposed. In 1989 the matter went for adjudication before Sir Kenneth Holland, who agreed to the changes subject to certain conditions that have not yet been met. The county fire officer has always made it clear that he would require the upgrading of Fareham fire station before downgrading Gosport, so that the status quo with 24-hour cover at Gosport would continue for the time being.
My purpose this evening is to express my constituents' continuing concern because there are some features special to Gosport. Like many other parts of the country Gosport has its share of high-rise buildings. It has seven high-rise buildings, 24 nursing homes and 24 warden-assisted accommodation units. That is not especially unusual. I have already referred to the risk categories A, B. C and D, but there are some establishments within the constituency of Gosport which do not easily fit into those categories.
We have industrial premises, an airfield at HMS Daedalus, a submarine base at HMS Dolphin, a Royal Naval aircraft yard at Fleetlands, an oil fuel depot at Mumby road in Gosport with a substantial reservoir of oil for the Navy and an oil fuel jetty and Royal Fleet Auxiliary tankers at the Royal Clarence yard in Weevil lane, Gosport. Most significant of all, we have the Royal Naval armaments depots at Bedenham, Frater and Elson with substantial armaments of all kinds used by the Royal Navy.
The Home Office takes account of such special risks and provides a special category entitled "Special risks". According to the guidelines,
There are certain small areas, whether comprising single buildings or complexes, which need a first attendance over and above that appropriate to the risk which predominates in the surrounding area.
But can one really refer to RNAD Bedenham as being a small area? It is some 555 acres, with a perimeter fence some nine miles long. Its safety record is outstandingly good, but the fire cover must be of the best.
What are the problems with which I am concerned? At present, the fire service can reach every part of Gosport in six minutes. The proposals of the county fire officer, however, add four to five minutes to every call out of duty hours. Those comprise some 66 per cent. or two thirds of all calls, making the maximum not six minutes but something like 10 minutes. I am taking here the figures from the fire cover review, section 3.9.3, which gives average speeds for fire appliances. It seems that a fire appliance would not be able to reach more than some two miles from the fire station in the limit of 10 or so minutes, so we should be very close to the limit in Gosport.
The roads in Gosport do not allow rapid movement. We have a highly congested area with some 30,000-plus domestic establishments and more than 5,000 business establishments, all in a small area. In many cases the roads in the area are so narrow that fire engines find it difficult to manoeuvre when cars are heavily parked. If appliances are coming from Fareham, as they would have to if the proposals were carried through and extra appliances were needed from Fareham, they would need to come down the

heavily congested and seriously undergraded A32 main road, which is a cause of a great deal of local controversy and discontent.
During a recent eight-pump fire in Gosport, it took Fareham appliances 15 and 18 minutes respectively to reach the fire in Gosport from Fareham. Fortunately, on that occasion the men were on duty. If the call to take them out had come some 10 minutes later they would have been off duty, and the time taken to reach the fire would have been 20 and 23 minutes respectively.
There has been considerable concern in Gosport and there have been petitions. Gosport borough council has considered the situation and, on 19 October 1988, it resolved:
That the Borough Council advises the Home Secretary that it is strenuously opposed to the current proposals by Hampshire County Council
for the change in fire service cover in the Gosport constituency. That concern is shared by the firefighters themselves.
I wish to emphasise—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister agrees that I should—that I am not uttering one word in criticism of Hampshire county council, the chief fire officer or any of his officers. It is the level of cover and the standard that they provide which gives rise to the concern that that cover might be reduced. On the fire service and fire cover generally, the Audit Commission's occasional paper No. 1 of September 1986, dealing particularly with the financial implications and the financial considerations affecting the fire service rather than its efficiency, reported:
One reason for the relatively modest value improvement potential identified by auditors is straightforward. In many respects, the fire service appears to be notably well managed.
For example:
Auditors and the Commission's senior officers have repeatedly been impressed at senior fire officers' combination of technical qualifications, leadership skills and general management ability. None of these are unusual in themselves, but the rather consistent combination of the three is perhaps not so common.
Another unusual feature is the generally high level of morale and self-confidence that appears to pervade many of the brigades examined. Firemen seem proud of their work and confident that they do it well; and opinion research suggests that the public generally shares this opinion.
Judging from all the conversations on the subject that I have had in my constituency, that is certainly Gosport's opinion. It is my constituents' high regard for those fire services that causes them to worry that they will be downgraded.
The county fire officer began his review not in Gosport but in Fareham. He was anxious to improve the service in Fareham and to provide new services there which he thought could also cover Gosport. In providing new services in Fareham, he thought that it would be safe to downgrade Gosport. Whereas from Hampshire's point of view the proposals are an adjustment, from Gosport's point of view they undoubtedly represent a downgrading, and would create many problems. There would be delays in reaching the location of a fire. I note, for instance, that the home for the blind in Lee-on-Solent is at the extremity of Gosport fire station cover. I note, too, that the main multi-storey blocks of flats in Gosport are at the extreme end of the Gosport peninsula—as far away as they could be from Fareham—as is Haslar hospital.
The preferred proposal to locate a new fire station in Fareham would involve a site at Oldbury way in Peak lane, Fareham, on a complex of four schools. They would all be


affected—especially St. Francis special school for the mentally and physically disabled. The proposal would create major inconvenience and would certainly cause distress to those pupils. The community association would lose its football pitch, and the proposal to take over part of the land for the new fire station would lower the quality of life for those using the schools' campus.
If Gosport fire station is to be downgraded to daytime cover only, night cover will need to be provided by firemen resident in the fire station's immediate locality. That would mean the fire service having to acquire houses for those firemen. The county fire officer's proposal is that five houses should be acquired at a cost of £50,000 each, but I believe that that is pitching the need rather low. There would be a need for more than five houses, and they would certainly cost more than £50,000 each.
I refer finally to what is the weakest argument in my case in firefighting terms but a powerful argument in Gosport. We take great pride in local services of all kinds—the ambulance service, the fire service, the magistrates court, the police, and so on. Gosport has a strong sense of community and we resent anything which downgrades Gosport and has the town served from outside. I submit that that is not necessary and I ask all concerned to recognise the value of Gosport's fire station and of continuing its 24-hour operation.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): We recognise that Gosport has a strong sense of community, place and identity—and the whole House acknowledges the lucid way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has made the case for Gosport's special needs for fire cover. I shall lay before my noble Friend Lord Ferrers, who has ministerial responsibility in another place for Home Office issues, a copy of the report of this Adjournment debate, and I am sure that he will study it carefully. I am merely his representative on earth tonight in dealing with the important issue in question.
I know a little about Gosport, but a great deal about my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and his vigorous proselytising on behalf of his constituency. In trying to respond to my hon. Friend's points, it might be helpful if I review the statutory responsibilities in the matter. Indeed, I am sure that the comments made by my hon. Friend and the comments that I am about to make will provide a good description of the statutory responsibilities of the fire service.
Under the relevant legislation, the Fire Services Acts 1947 and 1959, it is the duty of the fire authority in an area and in this case Hampshire county council—my hon. Friend was generous in his even-handed treatment of that council—to secure the services of such a fire brigade and such equipment as may be necessary efficiently to meet all normal requirements. The fire authority determines the appropriate number of fire stations, fire appliances and fire fighters in the area. As my hon. Friend said, that is known as fire cover and he referred to the four categories of fire cover—A, B, C and D. It would be otiose to repeat that accurate description.
In determining the fire cover for the area, the county council will always have to have regard to the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover that have existed since 1936. They contain recommendations about

the number of fire appliances that should be sent to fires in particular areas and how quickly those appliances should arrive. Hence the quadripartite categorisation A to D to which my hon. Friend referred. Those are the four main categories of risk.
Those four categories were reviewed quite recently by a joint committee on standards of fire cover established under the auspices of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales and the council for Scotland. That committee included representatives from the Home Office, the local authority associations, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, the National Association of Fire Officers and the Fire Brigades Union as well as other interested parties.
The committee recommended that fire authorities should review the fire risk categorisation in their areas, having regard to nationally recommended standards of fire cover. The general drift was that fire risk categorisation should not be regarded as set in stone for all time. As my hon. Friend said in the description of his area, an urban area changes and sometimes greater risks occur because of a concentration of new buildings, including high-rise buildings, or more homes for the elderly appearing in areas which did not have such homes 20 years ago. All those points must be considered by the thoroughly modern fire service to ensure that the categorisation is right.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary accepted the committee's recommendations and its proposals on appropriate standards of fire cover. In a circular to fire authorities issued in May 1985, the Home Office asked fire authorities to put in hand reviews of fire risk categorisations in their areas.
The chief fire officer of Hampshire subsequently carried out a comprehensive review in his area and in July 1988 the fire authority sought the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 for certain reductions in the brigade's establishment. Among those was the proposal to which my hon. Friend, on behalf of his constituents, has taken considerable exception.
That proposal was that the fire station at Gosport should reduce its establishment of fire fighters and move from a shift-manning system to what is known in the trade as a day-manning system. Under the former system, fire fighters operate from a station on a 24-hour basis. Under the latter, they operate from the station during the daytime and respond to calls from their homes nearby in the evenings and at night in the way in which my hon. Friend described accurately to the House.
In giving his approval to the application in July 1989, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had regard to the considerable local consultation to which the fire authority's proposals had been subject. He also had particular regard to the professional advice that he had received, especially the professional advice from Her Majesty's inspector of fire services, which confirmed that, if the changes were to be put into effect, the fire authority would continue to meet the appropriate national standards.
In approving the change, it was made clear that it was subject to the uprating of cover from day-manning to shift-manning at Fareham fire station in exactly the same way that my hon. Friend has described. The fire authority has proposed the construction of a new fire station there. The proposed changes to fire cover in Hampshire are interrelated in the way that my hon. Friend has described.
Although I can readily understand my hon. Friend's concern about proposals to change fire cover in Gosport in his constituency, I must reassure him—and through him, his constituents—that the proposals were subject to a rigourous examination before approval. Indeed, they underwent an additional examination by an outside adjudicator appointed by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades, which is responsible for conditions of service in our fire brigades. That adjudicator, who was able to second-guess what had gone on before in deciding the right form of fire cover, found that it would be appropriate to introduce the day-manning system at Gosport.
I want to assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to maintaining the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover in Gosport, as elsewhere in the country, and to the maintenance of an effective fire service in Gosport, as elsewhere in the country. I will draw my hon. Friend's strongly and clearly expressed views to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Earl Ferrers, who has ministerial responsibility in this respect, so that he can take into account what my hon. Friend had said in this Adjournment debate, on which I congratulate him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Two o'clock.